Championing

Wellbeing

The Cost of Ignoring Reasonable Adjustments at Work

14th May 2026

Jodie Hill

Khorram v Capgemini UK Plc | Case 6004705/2024 | Employment Judge Adkin | July 2025

This case is a clear lesson for employers on how to manage ADHD diagnoses in the workplace, and ensuring that the balance of supporting colleagues to reach their full potential, and ensuring individuals feel that support, is key to helping businesses to thrive. What Happened?

Bahar Khorram is a cloud technologist with over 25 years of experience. In June 2023 she joined Capgemini UK as Presales Market Lead on a £120,000 salary, one level below director.

She had an ADHD diagnosis and knew what she needed to function: clear structure, focused tasks, and support from those around her. Without that, multitasking and ambiguity would be genuinely debilitating.

Instead, she reported that she was given her objectives seven weeks late, had tight deadlines across multiple simultaneous workstreams, and became overwhelmed in her workload, there was a failure by her employer to provide her with recommended training in time management and coping strategies.

In September 2023 she disclosed her ADHD diagnosis to her line manager. Despite this disclosure, Khorram was set complex tasks with unachievable deadlines, concerns were raised regarding her ability to manage the demands set and Khorram requested adjustments to be put into place. Occupational health was brought in, and a workplace needs assessment followed. The report landed in early November with a clear list of recommended reasonable adjustments, including ADHD awareness training, neurodiversity training for the team, workplace coaching sessions, and realistic task-setting.

Ms Khorram even emailed her manager to invite him to the ADHD training herself and he did not reply.

None of the recommended adjustments were put in place. As a result, Ms Khorram went off sick. Her probation was extended twice and on the 2nd of February 2024, she was dismissed for “ongoing performance concerns” at a meeting held without her.

What claims were brought and what did the tribunal decide?

Ms Khorram brought three claims:

Failure to make reasonable adjustments (s20 and 21 Equality Act 2010)

Unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability (s15 Equality Act 2010)

Harassment relating to disability (s26 Equality Act 2010)

five of the reasonable adjustment complaints were upheld. The Tribunal found Capgemini had failed to put in place:

Achievable and realistic task-setting

Neurodiversity awareness training for colleagues and managers

ADHD awareness training for the wider team

Six workplace coaching sessions focused on ADHD, time management and coping strategies

Co-coaching sessions with her line manager

The Tribunal also found that two practices at Capgemini were putting Ms Khorram at a substantial disadvantage: requiring her to multitask, and holding her to strict deadlines. Both are well-recognised pressure points for people with ADHD. By doing this, Ms Khorram is at a significant disadvantage against her team.

By response, Capgemini argued that Ms Khorram did not want the training but

the Tribunal rejected that entirely. She did not want to be singled out by having it delivered privately to her immediate team, but she was perfectly happy to attend as one of fifteen participants in a general webinar. Capgemini simply got it wrong.

The s15 and harassment claims were dismissed.

What was the award, and why does it matter?

The remedy judgment in December 2025 awarded Ms Khorram over £24,200:

£10,000 for injury to feelings

£1,591.23 interest on that award

£11,422.13 (gross) for loss of income

£640 for loss of pension

£550.68 interest on income loss

The financial loss was limited because the Tribunal found Ms Khorram probably would not have passed her probation even with adjustments in place. However a £10,000 injury to feelings award is significant and shows the emotional impact of being ignored, unsupported and dismissed.

This was a relatively low-value claim given the seniority involved. Had Ms Khorram’s employment continued, the figures could have been very different.

Top 5 lessons for employers- why you should take note.

1. getting an OH report is not enough. you have to act on it.

Capgemini commissioned the report and the recommendations were clear. But then nothing happened. If you commission an occupational health assessment, you are not bound to the advice, but you must follow through and document what you are doing, why, and by when. Check out our blog on why reasonable adjustments are so important! Reasonable Adjustments at Work Blog

2. ADHD training for your team is a legal obligation, not a nice-to-have.

This case confirms that ADHD and neurodiversity awareness training for a team can itself be a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act. A one-hour online webinar for up to 15 people is not a burden; it is proportionate, practical and, as this case shows, legally required in some cases. Take a look at Jodie Hill’s YouTube short on how to be the best manager in supporting reasonable adjustments is it complicated to manage reasonable adjustments? for some additional guidance.

lling a manager is not the same as supporting one.

Mr Baldwin knew about the diagnosis and was invited to the training, but he did not engage. The result? Capgemini lost at the Tribunal. Line managers need more than information; they need proper training on their roles for disabled employees, clear accountability, and active support from HR to follow through on adjustments.

4. review how you assign work when someone discloses ADHD.

The Tribunal found that requiring multitasking and strict deadlines were practices that placed Ms Khorram at a substantial disadvantage. When an employee discloses ADHD, that is your prompt to look at how work is structured. Can tasks be broken into single-focus activities? Can deadlines be sequenced rather than stacked? Small changes can make a significant legal and practical difference. If you’re struggling to find the balance of what is a reasonable adjustment and what is not achievable, check our latest blog 5 Steps Managers Should Take When Considering Whether an Adjustment is Reasonable to help you get the balance right.

5. probation offers no protection from the Equality Act.

From day one of employment, every employee is protected. Dismissing someone during probation for performance concerns will not hold up if those performance issues are connected to a disability the employer knew about and failed to support. Employers should get their adjustments in place before you draw conclusions about performance.

How can thrive law help?

We work with employers who want to get this right, not just avoid a claim. We can help you:

audit and strengthen your reasonable adjustments process

train your HR teams and line managers on neurodiversity and the Equality Act

build probation and performance processes that are legally watertight

advise you in real time when a disability disclosure arises during a live process

draft OH referral frameworks and adjustment action plans that actually get followed

Final thoughts

This case is not really about ADHD. It is about what happens when a business knows someone needs support, gets told exactly what that support looks like, and still does nothing.

The Tribunal put it plainly: the training was not expensive, and it was not difficult to arrange. There was no good reason not to do it.

The award of over £24,000 sounds modest. But the reputational damage, the management time, the legal costs and the loss of a talented employee are not.

Take action

Does this case raise questions about how your business handles neurodiversity, disability disclosures or reasonable adjustments? Now is the time to act.