Reed Smith Newsletters

Our July 2025 update looks at upcoming new law on the enforceability of confidentiality provisions and developments with the Employment Rights Bill, and provides a round-up of recent case law, including interesting cases on the importance of searching for suitable alternative employment in a redundancy scenario and some disability discrimination cases exploring neurodiversity, disability-related outbursts, and the effectiveness of auxiliary aids.

Case law updates

Redundancy – alternative employment: A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision highlights that employers should be taking proactive steps to explore suitable alternative employment in redundancy situations. In this case, a training manager with a decade of sales experience was made redundant and successfully claimed unfair dismissal because of his employer’s failure to support his search for another internal role. His employer had not alerted managers to his at-risk status, had failed to support or guide his applications, and had communicated with the claimant via an email account to which he did not have access. The EAT also found that, had the employer acted fairly, the claimant was likely to have secured another internal job, and so full compensation was awarded. (Hendy Group v. Kennedy)

Disability discrimination – neurodiversity: In a recent case involving a claimant with autism and ADHD, the EAT provided guidance on assessing whether an individual is ‘disabled’ under the Equality Act 2010. Overturning the conclusion of the Employment Tribunal (ET) that the claimant was not disabled, the EAT made it clear that it was sufficient for a person’s medical condition to have a substantial adverse effect on just one day-to-day activity; that it was not appropriate to weigh up what someone can do with what they cannot; and that when considering whether an adverse effect of a medical condition is ‘substantial’, the comparison is between an individual as they are and how they hypothetically would be if they did not have the relevant condition. The EAT also commented how a diagnosis of autism or ADHD can reflect the clinician’s professional opinion on how the individual functions differently to a neuro-typical person, which can be relevant in assessing whether the legal definition is met. With disability cases involving neurodiverse employees on the rise, this case is a helpful reminder of the issues for employers to consider. (Stedman v. Haven Leisure Ltd)

Disability discrimination – misconduct: In a recent Employment Tribunal case, a claimant succeeded in her claim for disability discrimination after she was dismissed for gross misconduct following a foul-mouthed argument with a colleague which could be heard by other staff members and visitors. The claimant, a chef in a four-star hotel who had anxiety, depression, and polycystic ovary syndrome, admitted to her outburst and appreciated that it was unacceptable behaviour in the workplace, but argued that her disabilities affected her ability to control anger. The ET found her behaviour to arise from her disability but concluded that her employer was justified in dismissing her. However, the ET was critical of her employer’s failure to obtain medical evidence after her prior mental health-related sick leave which may have prevented her dismissal. She was awarded about £13,500. (Garner v. Thorpe Hall Leisure)