A major new government-backed report on neurodiversity at work has called for a significant change in how employers support neurodivergent employees, moving away from rigid, diagnosis-led approaches towards support based on the needs of the individual.
Published on 2 October 2026, the Expert Academic Panel on Neurodiversity: Final Report and Recommendations examines how employers and government can improve employment outcomes for neurodivergent people. It considers autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, developmental language disorder, tic disorders and acquired conditions such as traumatic brain injury.
The report does not introduce new legal duties for employers. However, its recommendations sit alongside existing Equality Act 2010 obligations and recent changes under the Employment Rights Act 2025. Together, these developments increase the importance of employers having effective processes for reasonable adjustments, performance management, recruitment and workplace inclusion.
What does the new report say?
The Expert Academic Panel was established by the Department for Work and Pensions following the 2024 Buckland Review of Autism Employment. This latest report expands the focus beyond autism and looks at neurodivergence more broadly.
Its central recommendation is a needs-led approach to neurodiversity at work. Rather than assuming what somebody needs because they have a particular diagnosis, employers should consider the specific barriers the individual encounters in their role and what practical support could help them perform effectively.
The report notes that people with the same diagnosis can have very different needs, while employees with different neurodivergent conditions may face similar challenges. It also highlights long delays and inequalities in access to formal diagnosis. The Panel therefore considers diagnosis a poor basis on which to determine access to workplace support.
This approach is also reflected in current Acas guidance. A worker does not need a formal diagnosis to meet the Equality Act definition of disability, and Acas advises employers to consider support for neurodivergent workers regardless of whether a diagnosis has been obtained.
What are employers expected to do?
There is an important distinction between the legal requirements that already apply to employers and the wider good practice recommended by the Panel.
Under the Equality Act 2010, neurodivergence is not automatically a disability in every case. Many neurodivergent employees will, however, meet the statutory definition of disability depending on the impact of their condition. Employers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments where they know, or could reasonably be expected to know, that a worker or applicant is disabled and is placed at a substantial disadvantage.
The new report encourages employers to go further than simply waiting for a formal request supported by a diagnosis.
Managers should focus discussions on what an employee finds difficult, what they do well and what changes could help. Adjustments might involve clearer written instructions, additional check-ins, quiet working spaces, flexible or hybrid working, changes to working hours, assistive technology, speech-to-text software, additional time to learn new processes or changes to the physical working environment.
The Panel also recommends that adjustments are regularly reviewed. An arrangement that works in one job, team or environment may become ineffective when circumstances change. Many of the interventions identified in the report are low-cost or cost nothing at all.
Recruitment should also be considered. Employers should review whether job descriptions, application processes, interviews and assessments unnecessarily disadvantage neurodivergent applicants. Acas recommends measures such as making essential requirements clear, allowing different application methods, providing information about available adjustments and, where appropriate, allowing candidates to see questions in advance or demonstrate their abilities through practical assessments.
Managers need to know how to respond
One of the clearest messages from the report is that line management can determine whether neurodivergent employees thrive or struggle at work. The Panel recommends psychologically safe workplaces where employees can discuss barriers and support without fearing that disclosure will damage their career. It also suggests employers treat adjustments as part of ordinary “performance optimisation”, rather than portraying them as favours or exceptions.
Employers should have a clear process for receiving, considering, implementing and reviewing adjustment requests. Managers should understand when to involve HR or occupational health and should record what has been considered and agreed.
This is particularly important where performance or conduct concerns arise. Employers should caution against moving immediately into a formal capability or performance procedure without first considering whether support or reasonable adjustments could address the problem. Formal procedures may still be appropriate where genuine capability or conduct issues remain, although adjustments may also be required to the procedure itself.
What happens if employers get this wrong?
Poor management of neurodivergence can create significant employment law exposure. Where a neurodivergent employee is disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act, an employer that fails to make reasonable adjustments may face a disability discrimination claim. Other potential claims include discrimination arising from disability, indirect disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
Problems often arise when something connected with neurodivergence is treated simply as poor performance, misconduct or unreliability. For example, difficulties involving organisation, communication, sensory overload or processing information could contribute to performance concerns. An employer that moves towards warnings or dismissal without investigating whether disability is relevant and whether reasonable adjustments could help may substantially increase its legal risk.
The Panel itself highlights difficulties disabled and neurodivergent people have experienced obtaining adjustments, including lengthy delays, refusals without explanations and requests receiving no response at all. It therefore recommends that employers should eventually be required to respond to reasonable-adjustment requests within two weeks. That proposal is not currently law, but may come through further legislation.
Employment Rights Act changes increase the tribunal risk
The timing of the report is significant. From 1 October 2026, the Employment Rights Act 2025 extended the normal time limit for bringing many Employment Tribunal claims from three months to six months. The new limits apply where the relevant act or failure complained of occurs on or after 1 October 2026.
The government’s response to the neurodiversity report specifically highlights this change, noting that employees will have more time to prepare claims, obtain advice and attempt to resolve disputes internally or through conciliation.
For employers, this means workplace decisions may remain capable of becoming tribunal claims for considerably longer than before. The practical consequences extend beyond litigation. HR teams should ensure records relating to adjustment requests, performance discussions, occupational health referrals, grievances and decisions are clear and retained appropriately. Managers should also understand why requests have been accepted, rejected or modified, rather than allowing decisions to go undocumented.
The Employment Rights Act is also strengthening employment protections more widely, including flexible-working rights, which the government identifies as particularly relevant to some neurodivergent employees. The combination of stronger rights and longer tribunal limitation periods makes preventative HR processes increasingly important.
Moving towards workplaces designed for different needs
The Panel’s longer-term proposal is Universal Design. The principle is that employers should design workplace systems to accommodate a wider range of people from the outset, reducing the number of situations in which individual employees need to disclose a condition and request a special adjustment.
Examples include clearer instructions, accessible documents, captions, structured task-management systems, different ways of demonstrating skills, predictable recruitment processes, more flexible communication and environments offering quieter areas or greater control over lighting and noise.
The report applies these ideas across recruitment, interviewing, onboarding, career progression, performance management and organisational change. It also recommends employers consider the physical environment, including the voluntary PAS 6463 standard on designing for neurodiversity.
Universal Design does not remove the legal duty to make individual reasonable adjustments. Some employees will always require specific support. Its purpose is to remove common barriers before they cause a problem.
What could the government do next?
The government has broadly endorsed the report’s direction, although it has not accepted every recommendation.
One area to watch closely is Universal Design. The government has launched a 16-week policy discovery exercise looking at how workplace design principles could apply to physical environments, policies, procedures and communications. It is also planning discussions with employers about practical needs-led approaches and low-cost workplace changes.
The proposed two-week deadline for responding to reasonable-adjustment requests has not been adopted. The government says further research is underway and reasonable adjustments are being considered through the Keep Britain Working programme.
Mandatory disability pay-gap reporting is further advanced. The government says it intends to require employers with 250 or more employees to report disability and ethnicity pay gaps, workforce composition and actions taken to address disparities. Legislation has yet to be introduced.
Reform of Disability Confident is also underway. The government accepts the Panel’s criticism that the existing scheme has lacked sufficient consistency and accountability and is developing revised criteria and verification arrangements.
Access to Work is also being reformed, with staffing being increased significantly to address application backlogs. The Panel has proposed wider reforms, including easier transfer of awards between employers and removal of the support cap, although the government has not committed to all of these recommendations.
One proposal the government has expressly declined to take forward as a legal requirement is the Panel’s recommendation to incorporate sensory-friendly design into building regulations. The government says there are currently no plans to legislate, while continuing to encourage the use of standards such as PAS 6463 and WCAG 2.2.
Further developments are therefore likely to emerge through guidance, Disability Confident reform, the Keep Britain Working programme, research into reasonable adjustments and the government’s Universal Design work.
What should employers do now?
The report provides a useful framework for assessing whether current policies work in practice. Employers should be able to identify how employees request adjustments, who is responsible for responding, whether managers understand neurodivergence and disability discrimination, how quickly requests are considered, whether adjustments are reviewed and whether recruitment and performance-management processes create unnecessary barriers.
Employers that address these issues early are more likely to retain valuable employees and resolve difficulties before they develop into grievances, sickness absence or Employment Tribunal claims. With tribunal limitation periods now extended to six months, weak processes and poorly documented decisions are likely to remain a legal risk for considerably longer.
