Two recent judgments from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) provide timely reminders that the Equality Act 2010 remains a robust framework for protecting disabled employees, despite growing scrutiny of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes in both the UK and US. While American institutions are actively dismantling DEI initiatives and UK regulators have scaled back or rebranded some diversity efforts, these rulings show that legal obligations under the Equality Act continue to be enforced. One case reinforces how neurodiverse conditions like ADHD and autism must be properly considered under the definition of disability; the other clarifies the legal limits of the duty to make reasonable adjustments. Together, they demonstrate that the law is not only alive, but evolving, and still central to how employers must manage disability in the workplace.
Autism, ADHD, and the definition of disability: Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd
In Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2024] EAT 124, the EAT overturned a tribunal’s finding that the claimant was not disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. Mr Stedman, who had diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), had alleged disability discrimination after being refused employment.
The original tribunal accepted that Mr Stedman had a mental impairment but concluded it did not substantially affect his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. On appeal, the EAT found this reasoning flawed and reminded tribunals of three key legal principles when applying the statutory test:
- Comparative impact – The correct comparison is between how the claimant functions with and without the impairment.
- Single activity test – An impairment need only substantially affect one day-to-day activity to qualify.
- No balancing test – It is incorrect to weigh strengths in one area against difficulties in another to determine overall disability.
The EAT also issued an important observation: the clinical diagnosis of ASD or ADHD is itself evidence of a substantial deviation from typical functioning. That diagnosis, while not determinative, must inform the tribunal’s view of impact.
Ultimately, the EAT allowed the appeal and remitted the case to a new tribunal to determine whether Mr Stedman meets the definition of disability under the Equality Act.
No duty to make futile adjustments: Hindmarch v North East Ambulance NHS Foundation Trust
In Hindmarch v North East Ambulance NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EAT 121, the EAT dismissed an appeal by an ambulance driver who had refused to work during the COVID-19 pandemic unless issued an FFP3 mask (a higher grade than typically used by non-emergency staff).
Mr Hindmarch had a diagnosed anxiety condition and argued that being given the mask would alleviate his fear of infection and enable him to return to work. However, the employer found this would not meaningfully address his concerns, citing national guidance that FFP3 masks would not offer complete protection and that his anxiety was too severe for the measure to be effective.
The tribunal agreed with the employer and dismissed the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments. The EAT upheld that decision, reinforcing a key principle:
If there is no real prospect of a proposed adjustment ameliorating the disadvantage, the employer is not legally required to make it.
The EAT relied on established case law and the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Employment Code of Practice to conclude that an adjustment must have a realistic chance of being effective. Because the evidence showed that the mask would not likely reduce Mr Hindmarch’s anxiety enough for him to return, no duty arose.
The EAT also dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, finding that the tribunal had properly considered it on its own merits and not simply as an extension of the reasonable adjustments claim.
What this means for employers
These decisions reinforce that:
- A clinical diagnosis—particularly of a neurodiverse condition like ADHD or ASD—is not just a label; it’s a legally relevant indicator of impairment.
- The threshold for disability is not as high as many employers think. Tribunals are willing to interrogate and overturn narrow views.
- There is no legal duty to implement adjustments that won’t realistically reduce the disadvantage faced by the employee—but employers must evidence that judgment clearly.
While DEI programmes are under pressure in other jurisdictions, the UK’s Equality Act framework continues to evolve in a direction of enforcement, not retreat. For employers, this is a reminder that disability rights are very much alive and embedded in legal compliance.
Train your team to get it right
Understanding what counts as a disability and when adjustments are required isn’t always straightforward. That’s why VinciWorks offers a range of practical, scenario-based training on disability awareness, neurodiversity, and making reasonable adjustments, designed specifically for HR, managers, and compliance teams.
Whether you’re onboarding new staff or upskilling leaders, our courses help embed an inclusive, legally compliant workplace culture.
Explore our training on disability and workplace adjustments or get in touch to find out how we can tailor it for your team.
