Our recent webinar, Making your workplace more neurodiversity friendly, attracted a fantastic audience and generated a wide range of thoughtful questions from employers, HR professionals and line managers. The discussion showed how organisations are increasingly committed to neuroinclusion, while still grappling with the practical and legal complexities of reasonable adjustments, performance, and operational requirements.
Many of the questions focused on where employers’ legal duties begin and end, how managers can support individuals without making assumptions, and how organisations can balance tailored support with consistency across the wider workforce. We were unable to answer every question during the live session, so we have brought them together below with practical answers.
Listen again to the webinar here.
When an employee asks to work from home more often because of neurodivergence, what steps should the employer take?
The request may need to be considered under both the statutory flexible working process and the Equality Act 2010 duty to make reasonable adjustments. The employer should meet with the employee confidentially to understand the disadvantage they are experiencing, how home working may help and whether any other support might be effective. A formal diagnosis should not automatically be required, although occupational health advice may be appropriate where more information is needed.
The employer should assess the request individually, considering the employee’s needs, the requirements of the role and the effect on the organisation. Where the proposed arrangement is uncertain, a trial period can help. Even if the exact flexible working request cannot be agreed, the employer should still consider whether increased home working, a modified arrangement or another reasonable adjustment could reduce the disadvantage.
How can a large, fast-changing organisation support individual neurodivergent needs when its processes cannot be fully bespoke?
Large organisations do not need a completely bespoke process for every employee. They should have a clear, consistent framework that allows individual adjustments within it. This might include a simple route for requesting support, trained managers, written adjustment plans and regular reviews, particularly when roles, systems or managers change. Acas recommends that employers and employees work together to try adjustments and review whether they remain effective.
Size and rapid change may affect what is reasonable, although they do not remove the duty to consider each disabled employee’s circumstances. The aim should be a scalable process with enough flexibility to respond to individual barriers, rather than expecting every policy or working arrangement to suit everyone automatically. This reflects the webinar’s emphasis on combining consistent processes with individual conversations about strengths and support needs.
How can employers balance reasonable adjustments with performance, attendance and operational requirements?
Reasonable adjustments are intended to help an employee meet the requirements of their role, rather than remove all performance or attendance expectations. Employers should identify whether neurodivergence is contributing to the issue, discuss what support may help and consider adjustments before moving into formal capability or attendance procedures. This could include clearer written instructions, revised communication methods, additional structure, flexible hours or adjusted disability-related absence triggers.
The employer can still set clear, objective standards and maintain essential operational requirements. Adjustments do not have to change the basic nature of the job. Expectations, support and review dates should be recorded, with regular checks to establish whether the adjustment is effective. Where difficulties continue despite reasonable support, they can be addressed through the organisation’s normal procedures, applied fairly and with the disability-related context taken into account.
How should an employer assess extensive support requests where an employee is also undertaking external study and examinations?
External study does not remove an employee’s right to reasonable adjustments, and an employer should not assume that studying means they are capable of attending work without support. The demands, environment and flexibility involved may be very different. The employer should focus on the workplace disadvantage, obtain appropriate medical or occupational health advice where needed, and assess whether the proposed adjustments are effective and reasonable.
It is still legitimate to discuss the apparent difference between the employee’s work attendance and their study commitments as part of a fair, evidence-based review. The employer can set clear attendance expectations, review adjustments regularly and consider whether the employee remains capable of fulfilling the essential requirements of the role. Any formal action should follow only after reasonable support has been properly considered and tested.
How can organisations bridge the understanding gap between neurodivergent employees and neurotypical managers?
Training is central. Managers cannot be expected to personally understand every neurodivergent experience, although they should understand common barriers, how neurodivergence may affect work and how to hold supportive conversations without making assumptions. Training that includes lived experience can be particularly effective because it helps managers connect policy and legal duties with the realities employees may face.
The aim is not for managers to become clinical experts. They need the confidence to listen, ask what support would help, recognise when reasonable adjustments may be required and know where to obtain further advice. This also reduces the burden on neurodivergent employees to repeatedly explain or justify their experience before receiving support.
How can employers encourage employees to identify the adjustments or support they need?
The process should be a two-way conversation. Employees may not know exactly what adjustment will help, so managers should ask practical questions about which tasks, environments or communication methods create difficulty, and what has worked well before. Giving examples of possible adjustments can make the conversation easier, while avoiding assumptions or presenting a fixed menu. This reflects the webinar’s emphasis that neither the employee nor the manager is expected to have every answer at the outset.
Trust is built through action. Managers should explain the process clearly, maintain confidentiality, agree adjustments on a trial basis where appropriate and review them regularly. A written adjustment plan or passport can also show that support will continue if the employee changes role or manager. Occupational health can provide useful advice, although it should support the conversation rather than replace direct engagement with the employee.
How should organisations support neurodivergent employees during meltdowns while maintaining conduct standards and protecting colleagues?
Employers should plan support before a crisis occurs. This may include identifying triggers and warning signs, agreeing how the employee can step away, providing a quiet space, naming a trusted contact and recording the approach in an adjustment plan. During a meltdown, the immediate priority should be safety, privacy and de-escalation, followed by a calm review once the employee has recovered.
A strong code of conduct can still apply, particularly where behaviour is threatening, discriminatory or seriously affects others. However, before taking disciplinary action, the employer should consider whether the behaviour arose from a disability, whether reasonable adjustments could have prevented or reduced it, and whether the response is proportionate. Support does not mean colleagues must accept harmful behaviour; it means addressing the incident fairly while also reducing the risk of it happening again.
How can organisations secure senior leadership buy-in for neurodiversity training?
Position the training as a compliance and operational issue rather than a standalone awareness initiative. Senior leaders are more likely to engage when the case is linked to Equality Act duties, reasonable adjustments, tribunal risk, recruitment, retention and manager confidence. The webinar also highlights the rise in neurodiversity-related employment claims and the value of preventing relatively simple issues from escalating.
Use internal evidence where possible, such as adjustment requests, employee feedback, absence data or inconsistent manager practice. Propose a practical programme with clear outcomes, including better conversations, earlier identification of barriers and more consistent handling of adjustments. Visible sponsorship from one senior leader can also help signal that the training is part of how the organisation manages people and risk.
Should employers arrange a needs assessment whenever someone discloses neurodivergence?
Not automatically. Disclosure should prompt a confidential conversation about how the employee experiences their work, whether they face any disadvantage and what support may help. Some adjustments may be straightforward and can be agreed directly, without requiring a formal diagnosis or assessment.
A specialist workplace needs assessment or occupational health referral may be useful where the employee is unsure what would help, their needs are complex, specialist equipment is being considered or the employer needs advice on effective adjustments. The assessment should support an individual discussion, rather than becoming a standard hurdle that delays access to support.
What should an employer do if an employee cannot identify the reasonable adjustments they need?
The employee is not expected to design the solution alone. The manager should explore the barriers they are experiencing, ask what has helped previously and suggest possible adjustments. These can be tested on a trial basis and reviewed. Occupational health, a workplace needs assessment or specialist advice may help where the appropriate support is unclear. This reflects the webinar’s emphasis on reasonable adjustments as a two-way process.
The employer should make reasonable efforts to engage the employee and keep a record of the discussions and options considered. If the employee does not engage despite appropriate support and clear invitations to do so, the employer may eventually need to manage attendance, performance or conduct through its normal procedures. It should first be satisfied that it has taken proactive steps to identify and consider reasonable adjustments.
How should employers balance individual adjustment requests with the needs of the wider team?
Employers must consider each request individually, although they are not required to agree to every adjustment requested. The question is whether the proposed adjustment is reasonable and effective, taking account of factors such as operational requirements, cost, practicality and the impact on colleagues. Employers should discuss alternatives where the original request cannot reasonably be accommodated, rather than simply rejecting support altogether.
Adjustments should also be reviewed regularly. An employee’s needs, role or working environment may change, and an adjustment may be temporary, require modification or no longer be effective. Recording agreed support and review dates helps the employer remain responsive while ensuring arrangements continue to work for the employee, their colleagues and the organisation.
Beyond noise, lighting and smells, what else should facilities teams consider when supporting neurodivergent employees?
Facilities teams should also consider temperature and ventilation, visual clutter, office layout, clear signage and wayfinding, suitable seating and access to different types of workspace. Providing a choice between collaborative areas, low-stimulation workspaces and private rooms can help employees manage concentration, sensory overload and recovery during the working day. HSE guidance also highlights suitable temperature, ventilation, space, seating and workstations as core features of a healthy workplace.
It is also helpful to make the environment predictable. Give advance notice of office moves, construction, alarms or changes to desk arrangements, and provide clear instructions for shared equipment and meeting spaces. Facilities teams should work with HR and individual employees rather than assuming one design will suit everyone, since effective adjustments may range from clearer signage to specialist equipment or access to a quieter location.
How should employers manage constructive knowledge where an employee has not disclosed a disability?
The duty to make reasonable adjustments can arise where an employer knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that an employee was disabled and experiencing a substantial disadvantage. This does not require managers to diagnose employees. It does mean they should respond to warning signs, such as recurring absence, an unexplained change in performance or repeated difficulties with a particular process, rather than waiting indefinitely for a formal disclosure.
The manager should approach the employee sensitively, describe what they have observed and ask whether anything at work is affecting them or whether support would help. They should avoid intrusive questions or assumptions, explain confidentiality and offer routes such as occupational health or an adjustment discussion. Where an employee does not wish to disclose, the employer may be unable to provide fully tailored support, although it can still offer flexible, widely accessible working practices and keep the conversation open.
Can an employer ask for medical evidence when flexible working is requested?
For an ordinary statutory flexible working request, the employee does not have to provide evidence of a diagnosis. The employer should assess the proposed working arrangement and the relevant business considerations through the normal flexible working process.
Where the request is also being made as a disability-related reasonable adjustment, the employer may seek proportionate medical or occupational health evidence if it genuinely needs more information about the employee’s workplace disadvantage or suitable support. However, it should not insist on a formal diagnosis as a routine condition of considering the request, since someone may be disabled under the Equality Act without one. Any health information requested should be relevant, handled confidentially and obtained with the employee’s consent.
How can line managers create a safe environment for employees to discuss concerns and what would help them thrive?
Managers should normalise these conversations through regular, structured check-ins rather than waiting for an employee to raise a problem. Ask open, practical questions about what is working well, what creates barriers and whether any changes to communication, workload or the working environment might help. Managers should listen without making assumptions, explain confidentiality clearly and avoid requiring an immediate disclosure or solution.
Trust is built through consistent action. Managers should follow up on concerns, record agreed support with the employee’s consent and review whether it remains effective. Training is important so managers understand neurodiversity, recognise when reasonable adjustments may be relevant and know when to involve HR, occupational health or specialist support.
How can organisations create a neuroinclusive workplace?
Start by recognising that neurodivergent employees may already be part of the workforce, whether or not they have disclosed or received a diagnosis. Provide neurodiversity training, make support policies easy to find and train managers to discuss strengths, barriers and reasonable adjustments confidently. Communication should be flexible, with options such as written instructions, clear agendas, structured check-ins and alternative ways to participate.
Organisations should also review recruitment, performance management and workplace design for unnecessary barriers. Offer quieter spaces, predictable processes and individual adjustments where needed, while reviewing them regularly as roles and circumstances change. Employee networks and lived-experience feedback can help identify gaps and ensure inclusion is reflected in everyday practice rather than limited to a policy.
What should managers do when a requested adjustment may prevent an employee from carrying out key parts of their role?
Reasonable adjustments should help remove workplace barriers and enable the employee to perform effectively. Managers should identify which duties are genuinely essential, discuss how the disability affects them and consider alternatives such as changing how or when tasks are completed, reallocating some duties, providing additional support or modifying the role. The assessment should focus on the employee, the demands of the role and the working environment. Employers are not required to accept every requested adjustment, although they must give proper consideration to effective alternatives.
Where an employee still cannot carry out the essential requirements of the role after reasonable adjustments have been considered and tried, the employer can consider capability procedures. Before reaching that stage, it should explore whether there is a suitable alternative role and keep a clear record of the support considered, the reasons for any refusal and the reviews undertaken.
Is it appropriate to use Occupational Health as the first point of contact when an employee may need adjustments?
Occupational Health can be a useful early step, particularly where needs are complex, the employee is unsure what would help or specialist advice is required. However, it should not replace an initial supportive conversation between the employee and their manager or HR. Many straightforward adjustments can be discussed, agreed and trialled without waiting for a formal assessment.
Occupational Health provides advice rather than making the final decision. The employer remains responsible for considering and implementing reasonable adjustments, taking account of the employee’s views, the medical advice and operational requirements. Referral should support the process, rather than becoming a routine hurdle before any help is provided.
