ADHD has rewired the workplace. This is what it means for bosses and workers

Employers across the UK and Singapore are feeling the pressure of a rapidly changing workforce. In Britain a wave of neurodivergent claims – driven by soaring ADHD diagnoses – is reshaping disciplinary processes, while in Singapore a record number of salary and wrongful‑dismissal disputes signal that business restructuring is colliding with employee rights. The twin trends mean bosses must rethink policies now, or risk costly tribunal battles and a talent drain.

From a single dismissed manager to a national surge

"It was all I could think about for 18 months and more,"

Media additions

Ryan Toghill, deputy store manager, via BBC

Ryan Toghill’s case against a major grocery chain became a touchstone for the new reality of neurodiversity at work. After disclosing an ADHD diagnosis, he was summoned to a disciplinary meeting for operating equipment without training, dismissed for gross misconduct and later awarded more than £45,000 when a tribunal ruled that reasonable adjustments – such as extra breaks – had not been offered.

The judgment clarified that a manager’s description of “a lack of remorse” was linked to ADHD‑related communication differences. “I don’t show a lot of emotions,” Toghill explained, “I could be incredibly happy, angry, upset, or remorseful, and my facial expressions and tone of voice would essentially remain the same.”

Lidl, the employer, responded that it is “committed to ensuring that everyone receives the reasonable adjustments, clear communication and support they need to thrive.” Yet the case is far from isolated.

Tribunal data shows exponential growth

Irwin Mitchell, one of Britain’s largest law firms, has tracked a jump in neurodivergent tribunal cases from 265 in 2020 to 517 in 2025, with autism and ADHD the most cited conditions. The Ministry of Justice’s online judgments database underpins these figures, though it cautions they are not official statistics.

University College London research has identified a nearly 20‑fold increase in UK adults diagnosed with ADHD between 2000 and 2018, while the Lancet Regional Health Europe journal notes that only about 1.2% of adults in England hold an ADHD diagnosis – well below the 3‑5% prevalence estimated internationally.

These trends sit alongside a backlog of employment claims that now tops 531,000 open cases, according to the Ministry of Justice. Jenna Ide of Thomas Mansfield Solicitors warns that “it can take several years for a case to reach a final hearing,” leaving employers to make high‑stakes decisions without clear precedent.

What bosses are getting wrong

Employment lawyer Jodie Hill, who founded Thrive Law after receiving her own ADHD diagnosis, notes two recurring missteps:

• Requesting proof of a formal diagnosis – a legal test that does not require it.
• Moving to dismiss for performance issues before considering a possible disability.

Hill says many managers feel “every other conversation is about people wanting support,” and fear “the cost” of adjustments. Yet “many adjustments can cost nothing or very little,” Jo Moseley of Irwin Mitchell points out, citing examples such as re‑structuring meetings, offering regular breaks or providing a quiet workspace.

Professor Nancy Doyle adds that “the purpose of an adjustment is to facilitate good performance, not to lower the standard of performance.” However, she cautions against “covering for neurodivergent staff,” which can create dependence on goodwill that “may ebb away over time.”

Some businesses are taking pre‑emptive steps. Daniel Rickman, owner of the glazing firm Structura, introduced flexible working, fidget toys and desk‑mounted “busy lights” for all staff, saying the approach “gets the best out of everybody.” Yet he has also faced criticism for being “woke.”

Government and policy responses

Prof Amanda Kirby, chair of the government’s expert panel on neurodiverse employment, argues that the “medical” model of adjustments is inadequate. “Nobody fits into neat boxes,” she says, warning that training aimed at specific conditions “will never work.” The panel’s forthcoming report will feed into a broader plan to tackle economic inactivity that rose after the pandemic.

A 2024 government report found autistic graduates twice as likely to be unemployed after 15 months as non‑disabled peers, while the ADHD Taskforce estimates “unsupported” ADHD costs the economy £17 bn a year. The Department for Work and Pensions, in a statement to the Bbc, acknowledges that disabled and neurodivergent people have been “left behind, ignored, and not given the support they need to get into work.”

From January 2027, the Employment Rights Act will extend unfair‑dismissal protection to six months of service, a change that Jo Moseley predicts will trigger “a huge explosion” of claims.

Singapore’s parallel surge in employment disputes

Across the globe, Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) reported a record 13,083 employment claims and appeals in 2025 – about 3.44 claims per 1,000 employees. Salary claims topped 10,801, while wrongful‑dismissal cases rose to 2,168.

Foreign employees accounted for a higher incidence of salary claims (5.16 per 1,000 employees) than locals (1.61 per 1,000). Construction remained the dominant sector for foreign claims, contributing 46% of the total, while administrative and support services led local claims.

Although 88% of salary claims were resolved through TADM mediation, the total sum recovered climbed to $22 million, up from $19 million the previous year. Wrongful‑dismissal payouts also increased, reaching $2.71 million.

Officials attribute the rise to business reorganisation and restructuring rather than a decline in employment standards. “The increase in employment claims is likely driven by labour market conditions amid business reorganisation and restructuring,” MOM said.

Connecting the dots: neurodiversity and dispute resolution

Both the UK and Singapore data illustrate how workplace adjustments – or the lack thereof – can tip the balance from routine grievance to tribunal case. In the UK, the failure to provide reasonable breaks contributed to Toghill’s victory; in Singapore, many salary disputes emerge at the end of employment, often when communication breakdowns over expectations arise.

Legal experts warn that the growing tribunal backlog could foster “hidden bias” in recruitment, as employers may shy away from candidates they perceive as potential litigants. Kirby warns this could lead to “a hidden bias” where neurodivergent applicants are unfairly screened out.

What to watch next

• Publication of the government’s neurodiversity expert panel report (expected later 2026).
• Implementation of the Employment Rights Act amendment in January 2027, extending unfair‑dismissal protection.
• Further rise in tribunal listings, with some cases now scheduled for 2030.
• Potential tightening of foreign‑manpower access in Singapore for employers failing to meet salary obligations.
• Increasing adoption of proactive adjustment programmes, such as those pioneered by Structura, as businesses seek to avoid costly claims.

The convergence of soaring neurodivergent diagnoses, higher expectations for inclusive workplaces, and a global uptick in employment disputes signals that bosses cannot afford to treat adjustments as optional. Whether a grocery chain in London or a construction firm in Singapore, the cost of inaction is now measurable, and the clock is ticking for policy makers and employers alike.