More than a third of workplace professionals say managers lack confidence when discussing reasonable adjustments for neurodivergent employees, according to new research.
The findings, from compliance experts at VinciWorks, come as tribunal claims linked to neurodiversity discrimination continue to rise.
The survey of 495 HR, L&D and compliance professionals found that 35% believe managers in their organisation lack confidence in these conversations. Almost a third, 30%, described managers as not very confident, while only 6.5% said managers were very confident and five per cent said they were not confident at all.
With at least one in seven people in the UK estimated to be neurodivergent, the data highlights a gap between workforce needs and management capability. This gap is becoming more visible as legal scrutiny increases and expectations around workplace support continue to evolve.
Separate analysis of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service data by Irwin Mitchell shows that tribunal claims involving neurodiversity discrimination have risen 95% over five years. In the last year alone, 517 cases were recorded, compared with 265 in 2020, including a 19% increase between 2024 and 2025. Autism and ADHD were the most commonly cited conditions, with the average cost of defending a single tribunal now at £8,500 in legal costs alone.
Training and Awareness Gaps Limit Workplace Support
Despite these trends, many organisations continue to report confidence in their overall approach. More than half, 57%, of respondents said their organisation was neurodiversity friendly. However, 28% were unsure and 16% disagreed or strongly disagreed, suggesting a disconnect between perception and experience.
The same research identified lack of awareness as the most significant barrier to improving support, cited by 31% of respondents. Manager confidence followed at 22%, reinforcing the role of training and communication in shaping outcomes for neurodivergent employees.
Fewer than four in ten organisations, 39%, have delivered any neurodiversity training. Among those that have, only 21% have embedded it into ongoing programmes rather than treating it as a one off exercise. At the same time, 38% said they have not yet delivered training but would like to, while 14% reported no plans to introduce it.
Nick Henderson-Mayo, Head of Compliance at VinciWorks, said that the pattern this displays should concern HR and compliance leaders.
“Organisations who say they are neurodiversity-friendly should have the evidence to back this up. With the Employment Rights Act putting more power in the hands of workers, firms should be prepared to show a tribunal how supporting neurodiversity in principle aligns with practice.”
He added, “A single standalone session is unlikely to change how a manager behaves when a neurodivergent employee comes to them with a problem. What changes behaviour is repeated exposure, practice and the confidence that comes from knowing what effective support for neurodivergent staff looks like. Effective training covers how to open the conversation, how to approach a needs assessment, and how to review adjustments over time. That is how employers can evidence support.”
Legal Risks Increase as Expectations on Employers Grow
The research found that barriers linked to training and awareness account for more than half, 53%, of responses. Time and budget constraints were cited by 16%, while 14% pointed to workplace culture and 11% highlighted unclear or inconsistently applied policies. Only 6.5% said their organisation faced no major barriers.
Recent tribunal decisions show how failures in workplace practice can lead to legal action. In Duncan v Fujitsu, an employee with oral communication difficulties was found to have been discriminated against after being required to telephone in when sick rather than communicate in writing and after being denied written agendas ahead of meetings. The case underlines that reasonable adjustments extend beyond physical changes to day to day working practices.
Forthcoming changes under the Employment Rights Act are expected to increase the likelihood of disputes reaching tribunal. These include reducing the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims, extending the timeframe to bring a claim from three to six months and removing the compensation cap.
Henderson-Mayo added, “Like any workplace issue, a policy is useless on its own. It has to be backed up by strong and regular communication, training for managers and employees alike, and effective routes for accessing support. This is what an employment tribunal will look for, and we can expect to see a lot more neurodiversity at work issues being adjudicated in the future.
“The Employment Rights Act increases the likelihood that an employment dispute, from performance to pay, will reach a tribunal. Where neurodiversity forms part of the claim, employers will be expected to evidence that support worked in practice, not just on paper.”