The Case: Khorram v Capgemini
In early 2024, the Employment Tribunal heard the case of Ms B Khorram v Capgemini UK plc. Ms Khorram, during her probationary period, disclosed her ADHD diagnosis to management after struggling with certain aspects of the role. Following an occupational health assessment, it recommended neurodiversity awareness training for managers and colleagues and other reasonable adjustment.
Capgemini did not implement several of these recommendations. Ms Khorram continued to undergo performance reviews, raised a grievance, and was eventually dismissed for “ongoing performance concerns.”
What the Tribunal Found
At the hearing, Capgemini argued that it had treated Ms Khorram fairly and that several of the proposed adjustments were unnecessary or unreasonable.
The tribunal disagreed in part. It held that Capgemini had failed to make reasonable adjustments, specifically by omitting the recommended ADHD and neurodiversity training for managers and colleagues. This omission was found to be a continuing act of discrimination.
ADHD and the Equality Act 2010
The Equality Act protects employees from disability discrimination, but not every ADHD diagnosis will amount to a disability. Where ADHD causes a substantial and long-term impairment that affects “normal day-to-day activities,” it can fall within the Act’s definition of disability.
In this case, the tribunal accepted that forgetfulness, difficulties multitasking, and organisational challenges linked to ADHD placed Ms Khorram at a disadvantage. This confirms that ADHD symptoms can, in certain circumstances, bring the condition within the scope of the Act.
Once on notice, for example, through disclosure or occupational health reports, employers must actively consider and implement reasonable steps to reduce disadvantage. It is not enough to acknowledge adjustments in principle, meaningful action is required.
One of the most significant aspects of Khorram v Capgemini is its recognition that neurodiversity awareness training can amount to a reasonable adjustment. Historically, tribunals have tended to view adjustments as practical, individual measures designed to help the employee directly. Examples of this includes modified duties, flexible working, or specialist equipment.
This case demonstrates a wider awareness of the reality that workplace disadvantage is not only caused by the condition itself, but also by how colleagues and managers perceive and respond to neurodivergence. Lack of understanding can add to difficulties, and training can be a practical way of reducing that disadvantage.
By framing the omission of training as a failure to make reasonable adjustments, the tribunal has confirmed that employers must think beyond “box-ticking” compliance. Awareness and education are not just nice-to-have inclusion initiatives. They may form part of the legal duty to accommodate.
Why This Case Matters
This ruling is significant for two reasons:
- Training as a Reasonable Adjustment
The tribunal confirmed that providing ADHD and neurodiversity training to employees can itself be a reasonable adjustment. Failing to deliver that training may amount to discrimination. - Continuing Act of Discrimination
By treating the omission as a continuing act, the tribunal widened the scope of liability. This makes it harder for employers to defend claims on procedural grounds such as time limits.
Key Takeaways for Employers
- Act on Occupational Health Recommendations
If occupational health advises adjustments, implement them or clearly document why they are not reasonable. Ignoring or delaying can amount to discrimination. - Embed Neurodiversity Awareness
Regular ADHD and neurodiversity training should be part of workplace culture, not a reaction to grievances. This reduces risk and supports inclusion. - Tailor Adjustments to Role and Needs
One-size-fits-all doesn’t work. Adjustments may include flexible deadlines, adjusted targets, or support with organisation and prioritisation. - Manage Performance with Context
Before escalating concerns, managers should ask whether performance issues are linked to disability and whether adjustments could address the root cause. - Think Beyond Compliance
Inclusive practices help with talent retention, wellbeing, and reputation — not just legal risk management.
Implications for Employees
For employees, the case underscores that legal recourse exists where employers disregard their duty to make adjustments. Practical steps include:
- Disclose conditions where they cause disadvantage at work.
- Request adjustments in writing and keep records.
- Obtain medical or occupational health evidence to support requests.
- Raise concerns early, before issues escalate to formal sanctions.
Summary
The Khorram v Capgemini decision highlights a shift, reasonable adjustments can extend beyond equipment or workload changes to include awareness training for colleagues and managers. Employers who ignore such recommendations risk findings of discrimination.
In a workplace where more employees are disclosing neurodivergent conditions, the message is clear, compliance with the Equality Act is the baseline but genuine inclusion is the goal.