And speaking of dropping it brings me to the recent case of Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd, in which a rejected applicant was not prepared to drop it, but took a company to task over his disability status.

Mr Stedman applied for a role as an animation host with Haven Leisure Ltd, a company operating UK holiday parks. Mr Stedman was not offered the role and subsequently brought a claim for disability discrimination, arguing that the recruitment process had not been handled fairly in light of his conditions.

Mr Stedman had been diagnosed with both ASD and ADHD and provided medical evidence in support of his claim. Mr Stedman explained how these conditions affected various aspects of his daily life, including his ability to form and maintain friendships, use public transport when overcrowded and focus on reading and writing.

The ET had to consider whether Mr Stedman was disabled for the purposes of the Act.

The ET concluded that Mr Stedman did not meet the definition of a disabled person under the Act. While it accepted that Mr Stedman had been diagnosed with ASD and ADHD, the ET found that the impact of those conditions on his day-to-day activities was not substantial enough to qualify as a disability for the purposes of the Act.

The ET focused on Mr Stedman's abilities such as completing a university degree and BTEC qualifications, his participation in public performances and his social relationships, and ruled that these achievements were inconsistent with the kind of significant impairment required under the Act. The ET also questioned the extent of Mr Stedman’s difficulties with reading and writing and viewed some of the challenges he described as falling within the range of typical life experiences. On this basis, the ET concluded that the adverse effects of Mr Stedman’s conditions were relatively minor and did not amount to the “substantial” impact required under the Act. Mr Stedman’s claims were therefore dismissed.

Mr Stedman appealed the ET’s decision to the EAT, arguing that the ET had not applied the correct legal test and had failed to assess the impact of his conditions properly.

The EAT agreed with Mr Stedman and upheld the appeal, finding multiple flaws in how the ET had handled the case.

The EAT criticised the ET’s approach to the medical evidence. While a diagnosis alone is not enough to establish disability, the EAT held that the ET should have engaged more meaningfully with the medical evidence provided by Mr Stedman. The existence of a formal diagnosis is relevant not only to the presence of an impairment but also to understanding how it affects an individual’s functioning. The ET had treated the diagnosis as background information rather than as part of the evidence of impact.

The EAT found that the ET had failed to consider properly whether some of Mr Stedman’s reported difficulties such as his inability to use crowded public transport or form social connections, could amount to substantial adverse effects for the purposes of the Act.

The Act does not require a claimant to be impaired across all areas of daily life; a significant limitation in just one area is enough. The EAT emphasised that, rather than being compared against the general population, the correct comparison is between how the person functions with the impairment versus how they would function without it.

Most significantly, the EAT held that the ET had fallen into error by focusing on what Mr Stedman was capable of doing rather than what he could not do or could only do with difficulty. The ET had relied too heavily on his educational and social achievements and used them to discount his reported struggles. The EAT made clear that this kind of “balancing” exercise is not appropriate where a person’s strengths are weighed against their limitations when deciding whether they are disabled under the Act.

The EAT subsequently set aside the ET’s decision, clarifying that a more appropriate and structured approach must be taken when assessing the impact of neurodiverse conditions like ADHD and Autism.

This decision is a reminder for employers when dealing with neurodiverse employees and job applicants. Conditions like ADHD and Autism often involve hidden or fluctuating impairments and employers should not make assumptions based on an individual's academic record, professional success or social skills.

Given the increasing awareness and diagnoses of neurodivergent conditions, this case highlights the importance of appropriate training, inclusive hiring practices and clear internal processes for managing reasonable adjustments. Employers who fail to engage with these obligations not only risk reputational damage but also legal claims and uncapped compensation.