The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s recent ruling in Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025] EAT 82 has reshaped how employers and HR teams must apply the Equality Act disability test. Combined with the 2024 amendment extending “day-to-day activities” to include full and effective participation in working life, the case has major implications for recruitment, workplace adjustments, and litigation risk.
Below, we break down the key takeaways and provide a practical HR checklist to help you respond.
The shift: what Stedman decided
The EAT found it was perverse for a tribunal to conclude that a candidate with autism and ADHD was not disabled. The tribunal had wrongly “weighed” his strengths against his difficulties instead of comparing him as he is with his impairments to how he would be without them.
Key principles clarified:
One affected activity is enough: disability can be established if a substantial adverse effect exists on just a single normal day-to-day activity.
Clinical diagnoses matter: a diagnosis of ADHD or autism is not determinative, but it is strong evidence that difficulties are clinically significant and “more than minor or trivial.” Tribunals (and employers) cannot ignore it without good reason.
Comparator corrected: HR must avoid offsetting strengths and weaknesses; the only comparison is self with vs. without impairment.
The case was sent back to a fresh tribunal, but the message is clear: HR decision-makers must apply the law precisely at the preliminary disability stage.
The legal test in 2025
Under Section 6 Equality Act 2010, disability means:
A physical or mental impairment;
With a substantial (more than minor or trivial) and long-term adverse effect;
On normal day-to-day activities (now expressly including effective participation in working life).
ACAS guidance confirms:
No medical diagnosis is required.
Effects can fluctuate.
Neurodiverse conditions (ADHD, autism) will often qualify where functional impact is substantial and long-term.
Stedman reinforces that HR must:
Compare the person with vs. without impairment.
Avoid “averaging” abilities or offsetting strengths.
Recognise that one materially affected activity suffices.
Practical HR checklist
Update your disability definition tests and manager guidance – reflect Stedman and the 2024 amendment.
Stop “weighing up” abilities – apply the correct comparator test.
Treat ADHD/Autism diagnoses as relevant evidence – weigh them seriously when assessing functional impact.
Act on constructive knowledge – build proactive enquiry steps into HR processes, don’t wait for disclosure or diagnosis.
Audit recruitment practices – ensure Equality Act s.60 compliance, remove unnecessary pre-offer health questions, and embed accessible, adjustable methods.
Refresh your reasonable adjustments framework – clear workflows, fast decisions, OH referrals, and Access to Work signposting.
Train line managers – on adjustments, neurodiversity in hybrid working, and performance/disciplinary handling.
Track disability metrics – prepare for disability pay gap reporting and align with inclusion strategy.
Document everything – decisions, evidence, and reviews, considering fluctuating conditions and the “relevant time.”
Communicate clearly – policies and candidate/employee materials should encourage early, open conversations.
Recruitment: Compliance and Design
The Stedman ruling highlights the risk of exclusion at entry. HR should:
• Offer adjustments proactively and explain how to request them.
• Avoid pre-employment health questions beyond what’s needed for fair competition.
• Provide structured, transparent selection methods.
• Consider adjustments like advance interview questions, extra time, quiet rooms, or virtual formats.
Managing Adjustments at Work
Effective adjustments are usually simple:
Flexible hours, hybrid options, quiet spaces.
Written instructions, task chunking, reminders.
Assistive tools, coaching, or mentoring.
Regular check-ins to review what works.
Keep records of:
The PCPs (policies, criteria, practices) identified.
Evidence of disadvantage.
Adjustments trialled and reviewed.
Performance and conduct
HR should build neurodiversity-aware processes:
Provide clear, written targets and extra processing time.
Separate wilful misconduct from disability-related behaviour.
Consider adjustments before formal steps.
Train managers to escalate issues for OH review rather than defaulting to discipline.
Inclusion, Data, and the Future
With the disability employment gap still at 28%, employers face both a legal and cultural challenge. Looking ahead:
Mandatory disability pay gap reporting is on the horizon.
EHRC guidance stresses support in hybrid working arrangements.
Inclusive design, open culture, and proactive adjustment processes will define best practice – and reduce litigation risk.
The Takeaway for HR
Stedman has reset the disability test for tribunals and employers alike. HR teams must:
Apply the correct comparator.
Treat clinical evidence with proper weight.
Build proactive, inclusive processes across recruitment, management, and adjustments.
Doing so is not just about legal compliance – it’s about building a workplace where neurodiverse and disabled colleagues can participate fully and effectively in working life, on an equal footing with others.
This article was created with insights from Lex HR - your always-on HR legal assistant. Lex HR helps HR professionals navigate complex employment law with confidence, providing real-time, reliable advice tailored to your needs. Try it free today and see how much easier compliance can be.
