The Employment Tribunal decision in Hogger v Genesis PR Ltd (2025/2026) highlights an increasingly important risk for employers managing performance in neurodiverse teams.

In this case, an employee with ADHD was described as “disorganised” and “uncommitted”. The tribunal found these comments amounted to harassment related to disability, as they reflected characteristics of her condition without appropriate support being in place.

While the employer had identified concerns around organisation and time management, it failed to properly consider whether these difficulties were linked to ADHD. Rather than exploring adjustments, the organisation moved straight into formal performance management, including placing the employee on a Performance Improvement Plan. In doing so, it breached its duties under the Equality Act 2010, particularly in relation to reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability.

This case is highly relevant for employers today. As awareness and diagnosis of ADHD and other neurodivergent conditions continue to rise, tribunals are placing greater emphasis on the steps taken by employers before performance concerns are formally addressed.

The focus is shifting. It is no longer simply about whether language is inappropriate — it is about whether the employer has taken reasonable, informed steps to understand and support the individual first.

Common workplace terms such as “disorganised” or “lacking focus” can carry legal risk where they reflect unmet adjustment needs rather than capability issues.

The key takeaway is straightforward: adjustments must come before performance management.

In practice, this means identifying where a disability may be present, seeking appropriate Occupational Health input, and putting structured, practical adjustments in place before initiating formal processes. Without this, everyday management language can quickly become evidence of discrimination.