We’re increasingly seeing stories of workers dismissed for conduct they argue is linked to their ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). Around 1 in 20 Australians have been diagnosed with the condition, which is commonly associated with difficulty remaining focussed, disorganisation, impulsivity and problems with executive functioning. According to the Australian Psychological Society, diagnoses increased by almost 300% in the decade up to 2023.
In this article, we’ll look at three recent unfair dismissal cases involving workers with ADHD, where tribunals were asked to decide whether employers properly considered the condition. In two cases, ADHD was found to be a relevant and overlooked factor in the dismissal. In the third, however, the worker’s ADHD was not accepted as a valid explanation for sending threatening messages to colleagues.
In December 2025, a UK worker won a discrimination case after a tribunal ruled her termination of employment was due to her ADHD. Nicole Hogger started working as a public relations account executive for Devon-based Genesis PR in late 2018. She performed at a high level during her first two years at the company, leading to a promotion to account manager. However, 2020 also marked the year Ms. Hogger was diagnosed with ADHD. Her clinical assessment stated that she exhibited poor organisation, regularly forgot things and struggled with tasks that required a lot of mental effort.
As she took on more responsibilities as an account manager, Ms. Hogger’s ADHD began to affect her daily output. Other managers noticed that she was “slipping behind” with her work and that she tended to “go quiet” if she was overwhelmed, rather than asking for help. By 2022, the situation escalated as Ms. Hogger began “going dark” during critical periods, leading to missed client obligations.
Ms. Hogger faced termination of employment in June 2023 after a period of being uncontactable during work hours. She told her manager that she had been out for “a massage, to Starbucks, or to the supermarket.” Ms. Hogger was placed on a performance improvement plan. During a subsequent meeting, a Genesis PR manager warned that her conduct would lead to colleagues viewing her as “disorganised.” Following this feedback, Ms. Hogger felt that she had no choice but to resign.
She subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim with a UK employment tribunal. She argued that Genesis PR’s management style created a hostile work environment, leading to a constructive dismissal. She highlighted the fact that she’d been labelled as “disorganised” by management. Ms. Hogger told the tribunal that procrastination has “always been a problem” and that poor organisation was a symptom of ADHD. She argued that the “disorganised” label was discriminatory, targeting her disability. She asserted that the firm failed to consider the medical report she had privately shared, which explained her “difficulty maintaining attention.”
Genesis PR, meanwhile, argued to the tribunal that its conduct toward Ms Hogger came under the banner of necessary management of a failing employee. The employer argued that they had attempted to mitigate her stress by transferring some of her workload to colleagues. They maintained that the label of being “disorganised” was a factual description. This was because she had regularly missed meetings and had been up to 40 minutes late to sessions because she was “confused” about the format.
The firm noted that a manager’s workload increased because she was forced to “oversee” Ms. Hogger’s work. It therefore argued that the feedback given to her was reasonable and “intended as constructive feedback” meant to encourage professional development.
At the hearing, the tribunal ruled that Genesis PR’s use of the word “disorganised” in the context of a known ADHD diagnosis amounted to disability harassment. It said that there was “little, if anything” that Ms. Hogger could have done with the feedback she received. The tribunal said that the comment only served to highlight her disorganisation without suggesting any practical steps to improve her performance. By focusing on the symptom rather than providing a solution, the employer was found to have undermined the employee’s dignity.
The tribunal highlighted Genesis PR’s failure to make reasonable adjustments for Ms. Hogger’s ADHD. It also labelled its response to her performance issues as disproportionate. The tribunal acknowledged the frustrations regarding Ms. Hogger’s absences from work. However, it ultimately found that Genesis PR responded without reasonable and proper cause. The final judgement determined that Ms. Hogger was subjected to an “adverse environment” and that her resignation was a direct result of discriminatory conduct. It therefore ruled that she had faced a constructive dismissal.
In December 2025, a UK worker won his unfair dismissal claim after an employment tribunal found he had been treated unfairly due to his ADHD. Ryan Toghill started working for supermarket chain Lidl in October 2019. In May 2022, he received a formal diagnosis of ADHD. Due to the condition, Mr. Toghill experienced “rejection sensitivity,” which made him highly reactive to criticism. He also suffered from “ADHD paralysis,” which caused him to be unable to carry out tasks due to mental fatigue or anxiety. Despite these challenges, Mr. Toghill was promoted to deputy store manager in June 2022.
In March 2023, Mr. Toghill made a flexible working request to help manage his condition through a more stable routine, specifically asking not to work after 6 pm. However, his manager told him “there is no such thing as a morning manager.” She then suggested that Mr. Toghill “consider your position in the company” if he wished to pursue the request. A compromise was eventually reached where he would work only one late shift per week.
Mr. Toghill’s updated work schedule saw Lidl transfer him to a different store. At this time, he was also managing a hernia diagnosis. Up until this time, Mr. Togill had been operating powered pallet trucks as part of his job. However, he did not actually have authorisation from the relevant UK government department to use them. The manager of the new store instructed him not to operate pallets until he had authorisation. Shortly thereafter, reports surfaced that he had ignored this instruction.
Following a meeting on 19 July 2023, where he admitted to the unauthorised use, an investigation was launched. Mr. Toghill was subsequently signed off work with stress and anxiety for around a month. Upon his return, a disciplinary hearing was held on 21 August 2023, leading to his summary dismissal for gross misconduct. Mr. Toghill subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim with a UK employment tribunal.
In his unfair dismissal claim, Mr. Toghill argued that his termination of employment was a disproportionate response that did not account for his disability. He claimed that the disciplinary hearing was conducted in a “hostile manner.” Mr. Toghill claimed that Lidl refused to adjourn when his partner, who was to act as a disability advocate, could not attend due to surgery. He asserted that his ADHD meant he had “difficulty coping with formal meetings” and that the employer misconstrued his communication style. He specifically noted that his condition means he might appear as though he is “not listening when he is spoken to directly.” He claimed Lidl’s management unfairly interpreted this as defiance or a lack of interest.
Meanwhile, Lidl argued that termination of employment was a necessary response to a serious health and safety breach. The company said that Mr. Togill had shown “a clear disregard” for the store manager’s authority and had “deliberately deceived” Lidl. The company argued that his actions constituted a “clear breach in trust,” making a final written warning inappropriate. Lidl further contended that Mr. Toghill showed a “lack of remorse” during the disciplinary hearing, which they used as a justification for summary termination of employment.
At Mr. Toghill’s unfair dismissal hearing, the tribunal was highly critical of Lidl’s failure to consider Mr. Toghill’s disability during the termination process. It noted that ADHD is a neurodiverse condition that affects individuals differently. It accepted that Mr. Toghill’s rejection sensitivity resulted in significant anxiety in the workplace “due to the belief that no one likes him.” It also acknowledged that his ADHD paralysis contributed to this anxiety as well as fatigue.
The tribunal said that Lidl “mistakenly thought” Mr. Toghill was showing a lack of remorse. This was because the company did not understand his communication difficulties. The tribunal highlighted that his ADHD put him at a “substantial disadvantage” during the disciplinary process. This was particularly because he “struggled to focus on long sentences/stories/explanations” that require a higher level of focus.
The tribunal ruled that Lidl failed to make reasonable adjustments for Mr. Toghill’s ADHD. It found that the employer should have sought advice on how to conduct a disciplinary hearing for a person with ADHD. Lidl should also have provided “suitable breaks” during the hearing to allow for the necessary reflection time. The tribunal accepted that Mr. Toghill’s use of powered pallet trucks could be seen as gross misconduct. However, it found that Lidl’s termination process was “unfair” and its decision was not “reasonable.” It therefore ruled that he had been unfairly dismissed. The tribunal scheduled a further hearing to determine Mr. Toghill’s compensation.
This story, which made headlines in May 2025, is an example of when an employee’s misconduct can outweigh any considerations for their ADHD. UK-based Brooklyn Forrester-Hayes worked as a garage apprentice at a Scania truck depot in Swindon. He had been diagnosed with ADHD at the age of five, having entered the workforce at 16.
The work environment at the depot was one where practical jokes and banter were common. However, this atmosphere had previously led to disciplinary issues. In 2021, Mr. Forrester-Hayes was issued a final written warning after he had grabbed and held a fellow apprentice by the collar. This was in response to his tools being wrapped in electrical tape.
The events leading to his sacking took place in July 2023. Mr. Forrester-Hayes discovered that his lunch had been significantly tampered with. Tea leaves had been scattered over his food, his chocolate bars were damaged and finger-sized holes had been poked through his sandwiches. Mr. Forrester-Hayes responded by discarding his meal and confronting his colleagues to identify the culprit.
The situation escalated when he made verbal threats and sent a series of aggressive messages via Snapchat to coworkers over a period of time. These actions were reported to management, resulting in his suspension and eventual termination of employment for gross misconduct. He subsequently made an unfair dismissal claim with a UK employment tribunal.
In his unfair dismissal claim, Mr. Forrester-Hayes argued that his actions were a direct result of his ADHD. He said that he had been medicated for the condition until the age of 14. Now unmedicated, he argued that his ADHD caused him to act impulsively. Mr. Forrester-Hayes claimed that messages sent to colleagues were a symptom of his ‘neurodiversity’ rather than intentional malice. He argued that Scania had failed to account for his disability and that termination of employment was a disproportionate response.
Meanwhile, Scania maintained that the dismissal was necessary to ensure the safety of its staff. The company said it was aware of the apprentice’s ADHD, but the nature of his threats over Snapchat was too severe to be overlooked. Scania argued that the behaviour constituted gross misconduct and that the previous final written warning for physical aggression made the decision reasonable.
The tribunal accepted that the messages Mr. Forrester-Hayes sent were due to his ADHD and inherent tendency toward impulsive behaviour. However, it determined that this connection did not override Scania’s obligation to protect other employees from threats. The tribunal said that Mr. Forrester-Hayes’ ADHD did not excuse the specific nature of the threats, especially as they were sent to multiple people over an extended timeframe.
Notwithstanding his ADHD, the manner of his threats were deemed not to be justified even given the fact he had been provoked. The tribunal therefore ruled that the termination of employment was reasonable and Mr. Forrester-Hayes’s unfair dismissal claim was rejected.
Read more: Physical Features Discrimination
We at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives can help you take action through the Fair Work Commission. For over 20 years, we’ve helped thousands of Australian workers with unfair dismissal, general protections, discrimination and sexual harassment claims.
If you want to get back at your employer, act fast, as Fair Work claims often must be lodged within 21 days of your dismissal. Contact us now on 1800 333 666 for a free, confidential initial discussion.
