ADHD at Work: Lessons from the Capgemini Tribunal
An employee discloses that they have ADHD.
A workplace assessment takes place. Recommendations are made. The organisation now has a clearer understanding of the barriers that employee is experiencing—and some practical ideas for reducing them.
On paper, the process has worked.
But what happens when the recommendations remain on the paper?
That is the question sitting at the heart of the employment tribunal case Khorram v Capgemini UK Plc.
It is also where many organisations unintentionally get stuck.
The right conversation may have happened. The referral may have been made. The report may be sitting safely in someone’s inbox. But unless responsibility is clear, managers feel equipped to respond and progress is reviewed, very little may change for the person still trying to do their job.
What happened in the Capgemini case?
Bahar Khorram joined Capgemini UK in June 2023 as a Presales Market Lead.
She had significant experience in cloud technology and solution architecture and was appointed to a senior role. During her probation, concerns emerged around her performance, including how she managed multiple workstreams, deadlines and ambiguous tasks.
Ms Khorram disclosed her ADHD in September 2023. A workplace needs assessment followed and recommended several forms of support.
The Employment Tribunal later upheld five complaints relating to Capgemini’s failure to make reasonable adjustments:
setting achievable and realistic tasks
neurodiversity awareness training
ADHD awareness training
six workplace coaching sessions focused on ADHD, time management and coping strategies
coaching sessions involving her line manager
The tribunal found that awareness training could have helped colleagues understand how to work with Ms Khorram and reduced some of the disadvantage she experienced in relation to multitasking and deadlines.
It also noted that the cost of the training was not prohibitive for an organisation of Capgemini’s size.
Ms Khorram’s other claims, including discrimination arising from disability and disability-related harassment, were dismissed.
That distinction matters. This was not a judgment that every difficult interaction was discriminatory or that every request made by the employee had to be accepted.
It was a finding that several reasonable steps, which could have reduced an identified disadvantage, were not taken.
What this ruling does — and does not — mean
This case does not mean that every employer is legally required to provide ADHD training whenever an employee discloses a diagnosis.
Employment Tribunal decisions are highly dependent on their individual facts. Reasonable adjustments must be considered in relation to the particular person, the disadvantage they experience, their role and the organisation involved.
ADHD is also not automatically treated as a disability in every circumstance. It may meet the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 when its effects are substantial and long term.
In this case, the tribunal had already determined that Ms Khorram was disabled within the meaning of the Act. It then considered which steps it would have been reasonable for the employer to take.
The lesson for organisations is not:
“You must book training or you will lose a tribunal.”
It is:
When a barrier has been identified and a reasonable step has been recommended, what happens next cannot be left to chance.
The gap between recommendation and action
Many organisations have processes for requesting adjustments.
Fewer have a reliable way of ensuring that those adjustments move from consideration to implementation.
A report may say that an employee would benefit from:
clearer expectations
greater structure
written follow-up
reduced ambiguity
support with prioritisation
coaching
greater understanding from their manager or team
But a recommendation is not an outcome.
Someone still needs to:
discuss it properly with the employee
decide what will be implemented
identify who is responsible
agree when it will happen
communicate it to the relevant people
check whether it is reducing the barrier
revise it when circumstances change
Without those steps, the employee may technically have been “supported through the process” while experiencing very little practical difference.
This is one of the places where knowing does not equal doing.
Training can be part of a reasonable adjustment
Reasonable adjustments are often imagined as something given directly to one employee: different hours, specialist software, a quieter desk or additional breaks.
Sometimes the barrier does sit within the individual’s immediate working conditions.
At other times, it sits in the understanding and responses of the people around them.
If a manager interprets difficulty prioritising as a lack of commitment, or a need for clarity as an unwillingness to work independently, changing the employee’s diary may not address the real source of friction.
In the Capgemini case, the tribunal accepted that neurodiversity and ADHD awareness training could have helped colleagues understand how better to work with Ms Khorram.
That is significant—not because training is the automatic answer, but because it recognises that the working environment includes people, expectations and interactions.
An adjustment may therefore involve changing what happens around an employee, not only asking the employee to manage themselves differently.
Awareness alone is not enough
There is an important caution here for training providers too—including me.
Delivering an awareness session does not, by itself, create an inclusive workplace.
Training can give managers language, insight and confidence. It can help people reconsider what they are noticing and understand why a familiar approach may not work for everyone.
But it must connect to everyday practice.
After the session:
Will instructions become clearer?
Will managers ask better questions?
Will adjustment conversations happen earlier?
Will somebody notice when agreed support has not materialised?
Will performance be considered in the context of the barriers still present?
Will employees feel safer saying that something is not working?
If the answer is no, the organisation may have increased knowledge without changing the employee’s experience.
Training is most valuable when it helps close the gap between understanding something in principle and knowing what to notice, say or do differently.
What employers can take from this case
1. Treat recommendations as the beginning of the conversation
An occupational health report or workplace needs assessment is not a completed adjustment process.
Meet with the employee, discuss each recommendation and agree what will happen next. If something cannot be implemented exactly as suggested, explore the barrier it was intended to address and consider another effective approach.
2. Give someone clear responsibility
Avoid a situation in which HR assumes the manager is progressing an adjustment while the manager assumes HR is arranging it.
Record:
what has been agreed
who will arrange it
the expected timescale
when it will be reviewed
Accountability does not need to feel punitive. It simply prevents support from disappearing into a busy system.
3. Equip managers to participate confidently
Managers should not be expected to diagnose ADHD or become neurodiversity specialists.
They do, however, need enough understanding to:
recognise when friction may be occurring
hold a curious and respectful conversation
follow agreed adjustments
give clear and constructive feedback
know when to seek additional guidance
A policy cannot have those conversations for them.
4. Separate capability from unnecessary barriers
Reasonable adjustments do not remove expectations, accountability or the essential requirements of a role.
They help organisations understand whether somebody is being assessed on their ability to do the job—or on their ability to navigate barriers that could reasonably have been reduced.
This distinction is particularly important during probation, performance management or periods of organisational change.
Before making a decision, ask:
Have the agreed adjustments actually been implemented—and has the employee had a meaningful opportunity to work with them in place?
5. Keep checking
What works at the start of a role may not work during a busy project, after a change of manager or when responsibilities increase.
Adjustment conversations should be revisited rather than treated as a one-off event.
A short, regular check-in can establish:
what is helping
what remains difficult
what has changed
whether further action is needed
The bigger lesson
Most organisations do not intentionally ignore neurodivergent employees.
More often, support becomes fragmented across assessments, emails, policies, managers and HR processes. Everybody completes one part of the process, but nobody holds the full picture.
That is why neuroinclusion cannot depend on good intentions alone.
It requires curiosity about where the difficulty is occurring, confidence to have the conversation and compassion for the human being experiencing the consequences while the organisation works it out.
The Capgemini case is not simply a warning about the cost of getting things wrong.
It is a reminder that once we know where friction exists, we need a reliable way of turning that understanding into action.
Want your managers to feel more confident supporting ADHD at work?
My ADHD at Work Lunch & Learn moves beyond lists of traits and generic awareness.
It helps teams understand how ADHD can show up in everyday working life, where avoidable friction may occur and what managers and colleagues can notice, say and do differently.
Warm, practical and grounded in both professional insight and lived experience, it creates those all-important:
“Ohhh… that makes sense” moments.
This article provides general information and should not be treated as legal advice. Organisations should seek appropriate professional advice about individual employment matters.
Read full article here:
