Seven in 10 UK employers have failed to train managers on disability discrimination or staff on neurodiversity, according to a new poll.
The findings come as tribunal cases involving neurodivergent conditions and protected beliefs rise and new employment-law obligations come into force. The training gap raises questions about whether managers are equipped to make fair, legally compliant decisions on reasonable adjustments, recruitment, sickness absence, harassment and competing beliefs.
According to a survey of 398 HR, legal and compliance professionals, carried out by compliance eLearning provider VinciWorks, 71% of UK employers lack training in at least one of two key areas – disability discrimination for managers or neurodiversity for employees. This highlights a potential gap between workplace policies and management capability.
More than a third (35%) of organisations have trained neither group at all. Looking at the two areas separately, 50% have not trained managers on disability discrimination, while 57% have provided no staff training on neurodiversity. The findings are particularly significant because managers frequently make day-to-day decisions about reasonable adjustments, recruitment, performance and sickness absence – decisions that can directly affect disabled and neurodivergent employees.
Official Acas guidance on reasonable adjustments states that when an employee tells their employer they are disabled and needs support, the employer has a legal responsibility to consider appropriate support. Acas also advises employers to train managers in areas including reasonable adjustments and discrimination as part of creating neuroinclusive workplaces.
The consequences when workplace adjustments are not handled effectively can be significant. Recent TUC research highlighted how a lack of reasonable adjustments is “holding disabled people back” at work, with more than eight in 10 (82%) disabled workers surveyed saying they had waited between four months and more than a year for agreed reasonable adjustments to be implemented.
MANAGERS RESPONSIBLE FOR REASONABLE ADJUSTMENTS
The poll from VinciWorks, raises a broader question for employers: having a disability or inclusion policy is one thing, but are the managers responsible for implementing it equipped to make appropriate decisions?
“Seven in ten employers telling us they have not trained managers on disability discrimination or staff on neurodiversity should worry any HR or legal team,” said Nick Henderson-Mayo, Head of Compliance at VinciWorks. “Managers are often the front line of requests for reasonable adjustments, and getting these requests wrong can make it far more likely a dispute will end up in front of a tribunal. Plus, disability discrimination already carries the highest average award of any protected characteristic.”
The manager-capability issue extends beyond disability inclusion. As Fair Play Talks highlighted during Mental Health Awareness Week, managers are often expected to respond to complex employee needs without having received sufficient training or confidence to handle those conversations.
Awareness and policies alone therefore do not necessarily change employees’ everyday experience. What matters is whether managers understand their responsibilities and have the confidence, time and organisational support to act appropriately.
NEURODIVERSITY TRIBUNAL CASES ALMOST DOUBLE
The training gap comes amid a reported increase in employment tribunal cases involving neurodivergence. According to analysis by Irwin Mitchell, employment tribunal cases relating to neurodivergent conditions including autism and ADHD increased by 95% between 2020 and 2025, from 265 to 517. The analysis also identified a further 19% increase in the most recent year alone.
The rise comes despite growing awareness of neurodiversity among employers. During Neurodiversity Celebration Week earlier this year, Fair Play Talks examined why employers still need to do more to support neurodivergent employees, highlighting barriers including misunderstanding, communication difficulties, discriminatory behaviour and problems accessing appropriate workplace adjustments.
A separate Fair Play Talks feature examining what workplaces still get wrong about neurodiversity found a continuing gap between employers’ broader commitments to diversity and employees’ perceptions of actual neurodiversity support. The latest VinciWorks findings suggest that training may be one part of that implementation gap.
REASONABLE ADJUSTMENTS REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES
Neurodiversity training should not simply be about recognising terminology or conditions. Some neurodivergent employees will meet the legal definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010, meaning employers may have a duty to make reasonable adjustments.
Acas notes that neurodivergent people do not necessarily need a formal diagnosis to be considered disabled under the Equality Act and recommends employers offer support whether or not an employee has a diagnosis. It also stresses that adjustments should be individualised because two people with the same neurodivergent condition may have very different needs.
That might involve changes to communication, working hours, workplace environments, equipment, instructions, breaks or the way work is organised. Previous Fair Play Talks guidance on supporting neurodiversity at work has similarly highlighted the importance of adapting communication to individual needs rather than assuming one approach will work for every neurodivergent employee.
DISABLED EMPLOYEES STILL REPORT DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT
The issue extends beyond tribunal exposure. Previous TUC research found workplace bullying, discrimination and harassment of disabled employees remained “shockingly high”.
That evidence reinforces why disability training should not be viewed simply as a way to protect organisations against litigation. Managers who understand disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments are better placed to identify barriers, respond appropriately to employees and prevent workplace decisions from causing avoidable harm.
WHISTLEBLOWING POLICIES NOT UPDATED
The VinciWorks poll also identifies another potentially significant compliance gap. More than two in five (43%) organisations surveyed have not updated their whistleblowing policies and training since 6 April 2026, when sexual harassment was added as a specific category of wrongdoing that can form the basis of a protected whistleblowing disclosure.
Another 11% either have no plans to update their policies or have no whistleblowing policy or training at all. The Employment Rights Act 2025 amended whistleblowing protections so that workers making qualifying disclosures about sexual harassment can be protected against detriment or, in the case of employees, dismissal resulting from the disclosure. That makes effective reporting systems particularly important.
Recent research found one-third of employees would be deterred from reporting workplace misconduct because they feared retaliation or other negative consequences. More recent evidence has also highlighted what can happen when employees lose faith in reporting systems. Fewer than half of frontline workers surveyed believed reporting customer abuse led to meaningful action, with some saying reports were acknowledged but followed by little support or communication.
For employers, updating the written policy is therefore only one part of the challenge. Employees also need to know where to report concerns, what happens afterwards, how confidentiality will be handled and how they will be protected from retaliation.
CONFLICTS OVER PROTECTED BELIEFS
Another 60% of HR, legal and compliance professionals surveyed are concerned that clashes between employees’ religious, political or philosophical beliefs could result in discrimination claims against their organisation. Those concerns sit alongside wider evidence of religious discrimination in the workplace. Previous research from Pearn Kandola found that employees of faith reported significant levels of religious discrimination at work, highlighting the importance of creating workplaces where different beliefs can be respected and accommodated fairly.
The findings also come amid a sharp reported rise in employment tribunal cases involving protected beliefs. According to analysis by TWM Solicitors, tribunal cases involving protected beliefs increased by 380%, from six to 29, between 2020 and 2025. Religious belief accounted for 31% of cases in the most recent year analysed, while gender-critical or transgender-related beliefs accounted for 24% of recent claims. Recent Supreme Court cases have also sharpened employers’ focus on how competing rights are managed.
In Higgs v Farmor’s School, the Supreme Court considered the treatment of an employee following complaints about social-media posts expressing gender-critical beliefs. Meanwhile, For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers concerned the interpretation of “sex”, “woman” and “man” under the Equality Act 2010 and has implications for how organisations consider sex-based rights and single-sex provisions.
For employers, managing these issues requires care. Employers need to distinguish between an employee’s right to hold a protected belief, their right to express it, how that belief is expressed, and the rights and dignity of colleagues. Managers therefore need to be equipped to respond consistently and lawfully rather than improvising when workplace disagreements arise.
EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS CHANGES RAISE THE STAKES
The poll also arrives as employers prepare for further changes under the Employment Rights Act 2025. “The Employment Rights Act is about to make all of this considerably more expensive to get wrong, Henderson-Mayo said. “From January 2027, the qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal drops from two years to six months, and the compensation cap disappears entirely. Add in the ‘all reasonable steps’ standard and duty to prevent third party harassment from 30 October 2026, more employees will have more opportunities to bring tribunal claims.”
The Government has confirmed that from 1 January 2027, the qualifying period for ordinary unfair-dismissal protection will fall from two years to six months, while the existing cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal will be removed. Existing day-one protections against discrimination and automatically unfair dismissal remain unchanged.
Further changes take effect sooner. From 1 October 2026, the time limit for bringing most employment tribunal claims will increase from three months to six months. And from 30 October 2026, employers will be required to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment of employees.
The Employment Rights Act also introduces protection against third-party harassment. Together, the changes increase the importance of employers ensuring that policies, reporting mechanisms and manager capability are ready before the new requirements take effect.
WHAT EMPLOYERS SHOULD DO NEXT
The VinciWorks findings suggest employers should look beyond whether they technically have the right policies and examine whether the people expected to apply them understand what to do in practice.
Train managers, not just HR
Managers are often the first people employees approach about an adjustment, health condition, workplace conflict or concern about inappropriate behaviour. Training should therefore equip managers to recognise when an issue may involve disability discrimination, harassment or another protected right – and when they need specialist HR or legal advice. The objective is not to turn managers into employment lawyers, but to prevent avoidable mistakes at the point where workplace decisions are made.
Audit reasonable-adjustment processes
Employers should examine how easy it is for employees and applicants to request adjustments, who is responsible for considering them and whether decisions are recorded and reviewed. Acas advises employers and employees to discuss adjustments collaboratively. If a requested adjustment is not considered reasonable, employers should explain why and explore other appropriate ways of providing support.
Move from neurodiversity awareness to neuroinclusion
A one-off awareness course should not be the end goal. Employers should examine whether recruitment, onboarding, communication, job design, performance management, physical workplaces and technology create unnecessary barriers for neurodivergent people. Many adjustments that benefit neurodivergent employees – clearer communication, greater structure and flexibility, for example – can also improve working conditions more broadly.
Update whistleblowing and harassment procedures
Employers that have not reviewed their whistleblowing arrangements since the April 2026 change should consider doing so now. Policies and training should clearly explain how sexual-harassment concerns can be raised, who receives disclosures, how investigations are handled and how workers are protected against retaliation. Reporting channels also need to be trusted in practice, not simply documented in a handbook.
Prepare managers for belief-related conflicts
Employers should avoid expecting managers to resolve complex clashes involving religion, philosophical belief, sex or gender identity without appropriate support. Training should help managers distinguish between a person’s right to hold a protected belief, how that belief is expressed and behaviour that may affect the rights of colleagues. Difficult cases may require specialist advice rather than an immediate management judgement.
Review dismissal and probation processes before January
With ordinary unfair-dismissal protection moving from two years to six months from January 2027, employers should review how probation, performance management and dismissal decisions operate. Managers need to understand that a shorter qualifying period makes fair decision-making, documentation and process increasingly important. They should also remember that discrimination protections already apply regardless of length of service.
Test whether policy works in practice
Employers should not measure compliance solely by whether a policy exists. They should ask whether employees know about it, managers understand it, concerns are handled consistently and lessons from complaints, adjustment requests and investigations are being used to improve workplace practices.
WHY THIS MATTERS FOR RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS
The immediate temptation may be to view the VinciWorks findings through the lens of tribunal risk. But avoiding legal claims should be the minimum standard rather than the ultimate objective.
When managers understand disability and neurodiversity, employees are more likely to receive appropriate support and reasonable adjustments. When whistleblowing systems are trusted, people are more likely to raise concerns before problems escalate. And when managers understand how to navigate competing rights, difficult workplace disagreements are more likely to be handled fairly, consistently and respectfully.
The common thread is management capability. Policies establish expectations. But employees experience organisations through everyday decisions about recruitment, workload, absence, adjustments, performance, complaints and workplace relationships.
As employers prepare for the next wave of employment-law reform, the bigger question is therefore not simply whether their policies are legally compliant. It is whether the managers expected to put those policies into practice are equipped to make fair decisions when it matters.
RELATED ARTICLES
A lack of reasonable adjustments in the workplace is “holding disabled people back”, the TUC has warned.
Why training managers may be one of the most important investments organisations can make to improve workplace mental health.
Many workplaces still lack the awareness, communication practices and support systems needed for neurodivergent employees to thrive.
Neurodivergent leaders and caregivers share lived experience of workplace barriers, and the changes employers must make now.
How to adapt your communication style to support neurodiversity at work, and improve the workplace experience for all.
The number of disabled workers at the receiving end of bullying, discrimination and harassment is “shockingly high”, warns the TUC.
A new workplace ethics survey reveals that one-third of employees fear retaliation for reporting misconduct, while many feel pressure to compromise their values.
Fewer than half of UK frontline workers believe reporting customer abuse or aggression results in meaningful action.
A new study has described UK workplaces as ‘hostile environments’ for people of religious faiths.
Sign up for our newsletter
