Neurodiversity at Work: what new data on ADHD and autism means for employers in 2026

Neurodiversity has moved firmly into the centre of workplace policy and risk management. A growing body of research, legal decisions and government data shows that ADHD and autism, in particular, now shape how organisations recruit, manage and support their people. For employers committed to diversity, including LGBTQ+ inclusion, the evidence points to both opportunity and obligation.

Diagnoses rising, needs still unmet

Long‑term studies published by the BBC show a steep rise in adult ADHD and autism diagnoses in the UK. Research from University College London found almost a twenty‑fold increase in adult ADHD diagnoses between 2000 and 2018. Autism diagnoses in 2018 were around eight times higher than in 1998.

Even with that growth, many people remain outside the diagnostic system. A Lancet Regional Health Europe study reported that about 1.2% of adults in England have an ADHD diagnosis, while international data points to a prevalence of 3–5%. Research from King’s College London suggests that around 90% of autistic people over 40 are still undiagnosed.

These figures describe a workforce where significant numbers of employees and candidates are neurodivergent, whether or not they have a formal label. Many will already be in roles, managing communication, sensory and organisational challenges every day.

The legal context: disability, adjustments and risk

Under the Equality Act 2010, neurodivergent people can be treated as disabled when their condition has a substantial, long‑term impact on day‑to‑day activities. That can apply even when there is no formal diagnosis. In those circumstances, employers are expected to consider “reasonable adjustments”, for example around working hours, communication methods and workspace design.

Recent tribunal decisions show that this duty is influencing outcomes. Employment lawyers report cases where:

• Managers demanded proof of a formal diagnosis before engaging with requests for support, and then faced claims of discrimination.
• Employers failed to provide simple, low‑cost tools, such as a Bluetooth headset for a dyslexic chef struggling to read orders, and tribunals linked that omission directly to an unfair end to employment.
• Recruitment processes were challenged by autistic candidates, with judges distinguishing between extensive changes that go too far and proportionate adjustments such as extra time and clear instructions.

Law firm Irwin Mitchell, using Ministry of Justice judgments, identified 517 employment tribunal cases in 2025 that referenced neurodivergent conditions, almost double the 265 recorded in 2020. ADHD and autism were the most frequently cited. The database does not cover every case, yet the trend is clear: neurodiversity is now a routine feature of employment litigation.

Employers’ confidence vs employee experience

Many organisations believe they are adapting. The City & Guilds Foundation Neurodiversity Index found that employers rated their own “neurodivergent readiness” at around 70–75%. Neurodivergent employees reported a very different reality: only 32–38% felt psychologically safe disclosing a diagnosis or believed their organisation understood the impact of their condition.

That gap matters for all inclusion work, especially where identities intersect. LGBTQ+ professionals are more likely than average to be neurodivergent, according to multiple international studies, and often weigh up safety around both sexuality or gender identity and neurodivergence. Where policies look progressive but daily practice feels uncertain, trust erodes quickly.

Experts from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and specialist firms such as Thrive Law describe a recurring pattern. Most disputes arise through:

• Processes designed around one “typical” way of thinking and working
• Managers who have limited training on neurodiversity and little time for individual conversations
• A narrow view of disability that pays more attention to documents than to functional impact

Economic and operational implications

Government analysis places neurodiversity firmly within the productivity debate. The ADHD Taskforce estimated that unsupported ADHD costs the UK economy around £17bn a year. A 2024 government report showed that autistic graduates are twice as likely to be unemployed 15 months after graduation as non‑disabled graduates.

At the same time, the number of people receiving Personal Independence Payment with ADHD as their main condition reached about 100,000 in April 2026, up by 30,000 over two years. Just over half of these claimants are aged 16 to 24, which signals a long‑term workforce issue rather than a short‑term spike.

The government is responding with a £3.5bn investment in personalised employment support for disabled people and those with health conditions. An expert panel led by Professor Amanda Kirby is examining how job design, recruitment and management practice can improve employment outcomes for neurodivergent people. Kirby argues for moving away from a strict “medical” approach toward one that builds variation into the basic design of work, rather than relying on one‑off fixes.

Pressure on the tribunal system

Legal enforcement is also evolving. Ministry of Justice figures show a record 531,000 open employment tribunal claims. Employment lawyers report that some hearings are being listed several years into the future, leaving both employers and employees in extended periods of uncertainty.

From January 2027, changes under the Employment Rights Act will entitle workers to claim unfair dismissal after six months’ service instead of two years. Practitioners across the sector expect a significant rise in claims, many of which are likely to involve health and neurodiversity factors alongside performance or conduct issues.

There is concern that this environment could drive hidden bias in recruitment, as some employers quietly treat neurodivergent candidates as a risk. That approach carries its own dangers: loss of talent, damaged reputation and exposure to discrimination claims if patterns become visible.

What employers can take from the evidence

For leadership teams and HR professionals, the combined weight of the data points toward a shift in mindset.

First, neurodiversity is widespread. With rising diagnosis rates and strong evidence of underdiagnosis, every medium or large employer will have a significant neurodivergent population, whether formally identified or not.

Second, law and practice now expect a focus on impact and capability rather than simple diagnostic labels. Employers benefit from processes that prompt early conversations about barriers to performance, offer adjustments where appropriate, and record the reasoning around any refusal.

Third, universal design has practical value. Measures that support neurodivergent people, such as clear written communication, flexible working patterns, quieter spaces and predictable structures for meetings, contribute to productivity and wellbeing across the workforce.

Fourth, culture and psychological safety are strategic assets. When employees, including LGBTQ+ and neurodivergent staff, feel able to disclose aspects of their identity without penalty, organisations gain earlier visibility of issues and can address them before they escalate into legal disputes.

myGwork can support this shift in practical ways. By signing up, organisations gain access to neurodivergent and LGBTQ+ talent, peer learning on inclusive practice, and a visible signal that they take diversity and inclusion seriously. For professionals, myGwork offers community, networking and resources that help navigate workplaces that are still catching up with the research.

Interested in becoming a corporate member? Click here for more info.