Tribunal claims relating to autism rose by 25% in 2025, marking the sharpest increase in at least five years, according to new analysis. The figures are based on tribunal judgments and highlight a steady rise in disability discrimination disputes linked to neurodivergence.
Assuming that roughly one in four claims proceeds to a full hearing, the analysis by law firm Nockolds estimates that 528 autism-related tribunal claims were brought in 2025 – up from 424 in 2024. Most of these claims are pursued under disability discrimination provisions.
Under the Equality Act 2010, a disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. Autism can meet this threshold depending on how it affects the individual concerned.
The rise in claims comes as awareness of neurodiversity continues to increase across UK workplaces. However legal specialists suggest that understanding of employers’ obligations has not always kept pace with diagnosis rates and evolving tribunal interpretation.
Equality Act Duties And Neurodiversity in the Workplace
“Awareness of neurodiversity is improving, but many employers still underestimate the extent to which autism and other neurodivergent conditions can amount to a disability under the Equality Act, and that gap in understanding is increasingly leading to litigation,” says Joanna Sutton, Principal Associate at Nockolds.
She explains that autism presents differently from person to person and must be assessed individually, on a case-by-case basis.
“Tribunals recognise that individuals who are highly capable in some areas may still experience substantial adverse effects in others. That variability is often what catches employers out.
“Tribunals are adopting a broader, impact-focused approach to neurodivergent conditions. Combined with rising diagnosis rates, particularly among adults whose autism may previously have not been identified, the pool of potential claimants is expanding. These trends are driving the growth in autism-related claims.”
For employers focused on workplace wellbeing the figures raise questions about how effectively reasonable adjustments are identified and implemented.
Employment Law Reform And Autism-Related Disputes
Nockolds notes that proposed reforms in the Employment Rights Act could lead to a further increase in autism-related disputes. Suggested changes include reducing the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months, and requiring employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent third parties from harassing staff on the basis of a protected characteristic including disability.
Sutton adds that once an employer knows, or ought reasonably to know, about a potential disability, they have an immediate duty to consider reasonable adjustments
“Once an employer knows, or ought reasonably to know, about a potential disability, the duty to consider reasonable adjustments becomes immediate. The rise in autism-related claims highlights the need for employers to strengthen their processes. Many line managers still receive limited training on how the Equality Act applies to neurodivergent conditions, particularly around when the duty to make reasonable adjustments is triggered.”
As awareness of neurodiversity continues to grow, employers may need to review training, processes and early intervention practices to reduce legal exposure and support employee wellbeing.
Sutton says that missteps usually arise not from ill-intent but from a lack of confidence, unclear processes, or delays in seeking occupational health input. Scenario-based training and clear protocols, she adds, “are essential to reducing the risk of claims”.