If a visually impaired worker stumbled in a hallway, no qualified manager would consider the worker “clumsy.” Automatically, we recognize that a stumble is a symptom of a condition, its fix, instead of a dressing-down, not a cure. Yet, for decades, this medically sound reasoning has been shelved when it comes to workers with neurological differences, resulting in a history of ADHD employment discrimination.
A recent case ruling before the Cambridge Employment Tribunal in the case of Hogger v. Genesis PR (2025) has now finally balanced the equation and rectified this inequality. It sets the precedent that none of us in the medical profession can afford to ignore in the following way: “Disorganisation” is to ADHD what blindness is to visual impairment. A symptom, not a character failing. Calling someone ‘disorganised’ and failing to structurally support them in the work place is to call someone blind and fail to supply them with spectacles. It is discrimination of the ADHD kind in the work place.
The Pathology of ADHD Workplace Discrimination
The facts of the Hogger case serve as a perfect case study in the mismanagement of Executive Dysfunction. The claimant, a PR Account Manager, began exhibiting signs of decompensation as her workload increased. To a clinician, the semiology was clear: she displayed “time blindness” (arriving 40 minutes late to an in-person meeting due to confusion over the format) and “task paralysis” (described by colleagues as “going dark” or “slipping behind” when overwhelmed).
The employer, lacking this clinical lens, viewed these behaviors through a conduct framework. They noted she was sometimes uncontactable, reports suggested she visited coffee shops to cope with overwhelm and labeled her “disorganized or uncommitted.”
The Tribunal rejected this diagnosis entirely. Judge Roger Tynan ruled that the comment was discriminatory because it “merely served to highlight a negative aspect of the Claimant’s disability” without offering any “practical steps” to resolve it. This is the textbook definition of ADHD workplace discrimination: penalizing a disability because the employer failed to provide the necessary “scaffolding” (such as the ADHD coach recommended by Occupational Health).
India’s Legal Shield Against ADHD Workplace Discrimination
It is easy to dismiss this as a Western luxury, far removed from the harsh realities of Indian workplaces where “shaming” is often conflated with management. However, the legal reality in India is surprisingly robust regarding ADHD workplace discrimination.
The Supreme Court of India, in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India (2021), established a binding precedent that mirrors the Hogger ruling. The Court held that initiating disciplinary action against an employee for conduct resulting from a mental disability constitutes “indirect discrimination.”
This creates a powerful, underutilized shield for our patients. If an Indian manager berates an employee for being “careless” or “disorganized” without providing written instructions or reminders, they are arguably in violation of Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016. If an employee is forced to resign because this hostile environment becomes untenable, it qualifies as Constructive Dismissal.
The Prescription to Stop ADHD Workplace Discrimination
The argument about “accountability” is moot. “Disorganized” is not an appropriate performance issue for a neurodivergent worker. It is now a characterization of their medical condition. Punishing it without an adjustment qualifies as harassment.
We, as healthcare professionals, need to move beyond the practice of prescribing generalized certificates, where the certificate lands on some shelf and collects dust. We, as healthcare professionals, need certificates that prescribe Accommodations to avoid ADHD-related discrimination in the workplace. This certificate, being more defensible, will point out that these patients, due to “time blindness” as one of the ADHD symptoms, amongst others, being charged fees for not being on time, are being discriminated against based on the RPWD Act, as they are not provided reasonable accommodations in the form of ‘externalized cues’ in the form of written instructions, ‘protected deep work time,’ or ‘body doubling.’ The blind are not punished for their lack of sight; we must, therefore, stop punishing those who do not think like neurotypicals.
This article really highlights a very important issue that the community as a whole, can’t afford to ignore anymore.