Former Capgemini technologist partially wins ADHD discrimination case

A woman diagnosed with ADHD has partly won her case against her employer, Capgemini UK, for failing to make reasonable adjustments. Kate Watson, a senior solicitor at Harper James, says employers need to take note of their own compliance with equality laws – but that it is a much more complex situation than simply throwing money at training.

Bahar Khorram is a cloud technologist with over 25 years of experience in solution architecture and pre-sales roles. She studied and worked in the US before moving to London and working for a variety of well-known tech firms. Khorram eventually joined Capgemini as a pre-sales lead in the IT consulting giant’s cloud infrastructure services business unit – with a salary of £120,000 salary.

Having begun work in the summer of 2023, she was dismissed in early February 2024, after a series of probation meetings – a number of which occurred after she had made her intent to pursue a grievance with the firm public. In the central London employment tribunal which has been held since, she has made the case that Capgemini failed to make reasonable adjustments for her ADHD diagnosis – and during her probation, initially set for six months, she was set a number of tasks with tight deadlines that required her to multitask.

The tribunal heard that Khorram’s ADHD could affect her performance “when tasks or objectives are ambiguous” as she tends to “over-complicate them”. An example given was when she had been due to make a presentation in September 2023, but emailed line manager Steve Baldwin at 2:00 am the night before, to ask for the number of topics to be reduced or for it to be postponed. When Baldwin responded at 7:30 am that she should give an overview of the topics, Khorram cancelled the meeting. A later email from Baldwin suggested that action “gives the impression that it has not been treated seriously and/or managed properly”.

Khorram told Baldwin of her ADHD diagnosis, and also told a probation review meeting that she was on medication that was causing her difficulties at work. Baldwin said he was “open to varying deadlines once they had medical input”, leading to Khorram undergoing an occupational health assessment in October 2023 – which resulted in the assessor supplying Capgemini with a “list of potential adjustments”, including a one-hour or three-hour ADHD awareness training webinar for up to 15 people at a time, including colleagues and managers.

Training sessions

The sessions provided “practical knowledge and skills to create an inclusive and supportive workplace environment for individuals with neurodivergent conditions”. However, when Khorram proposed in an email that Baldwin attend the “how to manage ADHD training” with her, he did not respond. She then took two weeks of sick leave, one week of annual leave, and inquired about changing roles in the company.

In early January 2024, Khorram notified an HR engagement manager, named in trial reports as Ms Wright, of her intention to pursue a grievance. Her probation period was then extended until the end of the month. As the situation continued to escalate, Khorram raised a formal grievance on 30 January in which she stated that there was notable tension between herself and Baldwin, characterised by his intimidating demeanour and evident lack of confidence in her capability.

A day later, a probation meeting was held which Wright emailed ahead of to try and assure Khorram that there would be breaks, and she could have someone there to support her. The email included the phrase “I recognise that you have shared you are struggling with your mental health” – a sentence that Khorram would go on to include as part of her disability harassment complaint.

The meeting ultimately went ahead in Khorram’s absence, and she was dismissed because of “ongoing concerns about her performance”. Now, the tribunal has found in her favour, that the company’s failure to take up occupational health’s recommendation for ADHD training for staff was a failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Employment Judge Tim Adkin stated, “There was some prospect of such training helping her colleagues to understand how better to work with her and ameliorating the disadvantage suffered by her because of multitasking and deadlines. [But the objectives which the claimant had been set in December 2023 were still live in January 2024.] We find that that represented a continuing act of discrimination. We have found that act was part of a continuing act of a discriminatory failure to make reasonable adjustments. These were reasonable adjustments and were not made by [Capgemini]. This was training to aid the understanding of her colleagues so that they could understand how to work with her.”

Culture and compliance

While Capgemini argued that it was not a failure to not implement neurodiversity training which Khorram actively did not want, the judge also found that Wright had known “what the claimant did not want was private delivery of a session delivered to team members including her directly”. Wright had recorded “that the claimant was happy to be one of many attendees” – but also understood the claimant “did not want to be placed in a situation where it was obviously being delivered because of her, with her team members.”

Indeed, Khorram herself “did not need to attend the training” at all, “given that the point of training was to educate the team. Both courses were directed creating a support an inclusive environment for all, including the needs of individuals with ADHD.”

Commenting on the finding of disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, Kate Watson, a senior solicitor at Harper James noted, ““This should serve as a warning to employers of all sizes to ensure they are making reasonable adjustments and following occupational health recommendations where reasonable. Failing to act on occupational health advice, such as providing ADHD awareness training, can amount to a failure to make reasonable adjustments, which is unlawful disability discrimination. Supporting disabled employees is not optional. Employers have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments, and that includes equipping managers with the relevant knowledge to support their staff.”

Other aspects of Khorram’s claim were not upheld. Those including harassment relating to disability were dismissed. But according to Watson, employers should still consider the importance of their corporate environment, in correlation with compliance to equality laws.

Watson added, “This isn’t just about implementing expensive programmes. It’s about culture and compliance. Simple proactive steps like manager training, flexible working patterns and clear communication channels can make a meaningful difference. In a tight labour market, employers that embrace neurodiversity not only reduce legal risk but also unlock the talent, creativity and loyalty of a more inclusive workforce.”