Unfairly Dismissed Lidl Worker Missed Out On Reasonable Adjustments for ADHD

Published : December 5, 2025

In Mr Ryan Toghill v Lidl Great Britain Ltd, an unfairly dismissed supermarket worker who wasn’t provided reasonable adjustments for ADHD has succeeded with his employment tribunal case. While he used a power pallet truck without authorisation, his employer conducted an unfair dismissal procedure, not considering his disability.

In our latest article, we examine the facts of the case and discuss how the tribunal reached its decision. We then establish what constitutes reasonable workplace accommodations for ADHD, and what to do if employment rights have been breached.

If you would like the assistance of a solicitor for an unfair dismissal claim, contact us now. Redmans Solicitors are experts in the employment sector, and following a brief chat, we can answer your questions and provide expert guidance. Should you have an eligible case, we could also guide you through each stage of the legal process.

To learn more about how we can help you today, simply:

The Facts in Mr Ryan Toghill v Lidl Great Britain Ltd

Background to the Unfair Dismissal and Reasonable Adjustments for ADHD Issues

Mr Ryan Toghill (“the Claimant”) began working as a shift manager for Lidl Great Britain Ltd (“the Respondent”) on 7 October 2019. He was diagnosed with ADHD in May 2022, before receiving a promotion to deputy store manager the following month.

The Claimant’s condition contributes to “rejection sensitivity,” making him highly reactive to criticism and prone to severe social anxiety. He also suffers from “ADHD paralysis,” an inability to start, carry out, or complete tasks due to overwhelming anxiety, stress, or mental fatigue.

The Respondent’s PPT Policy

As part of his duties, the Claimant used manual and powered pallet trucks (PPTs) throughout the workplace. The latter of these required strict adherence to rules due to their heavy, potentially dangerous nature.

Read More: RNLI Helmsman Dismissed After Unfair Investigation in the Workplace, Rules Tribunal

Staff operating PPTs at the Respondent’s work premises can only do so following prior authorisation from the Trading Compliance Department (TCD) at Head Office. They are also required to complete refresher training every six months. Should they fail to adhere to the rules, disciplinary action could result.

During proceedings, the Claimant admitted that it was “commonplace” in the Respondent’s stores for staff to operate PPTs without authorisation. Despite this, he acknowledged that doing so wasn’t allowed.

Compromise Found Concerning Flexible Working

On 26 March 2023, the Claimant requested flexible working arrangements due to symptoms associated with his condition. Primarily, this concerned establishing a routine and ensuring that he didn’t work after 6 pm.

However, following his request, Ms Narelle Leith, the eventual dismissing manager, said, “Just so you are aware, there is no such thing as a morning manager, and if that is something you want to pursue, you will have to consider your position in the company.” While she denied ever making such comments, the tribunal ruled, based on the available evidence, that she had.

Initially, the request was denied. The Respondent reasoned that allowing it would require hiring another manager to cover the night shifts. Yet after the Claimant appealed the decision, specifically referencing his disability, the parties agreed to a compromise. A more regular routine would be established, with him working only one late-night shift per week. Since his current workplace couldn’t accommodate this arrangement, though, he was transferred to one of the Respondent’s other stores.

Claimant Dismissed Following Unauthorised PPT Use

The Claimant was diagnosed with a hernia at the beginning of July 2023, around the same time he moved stores. When he started at his new workplace, he spoke with Ms Ogden, the store manager. He wanted to find out her opinion on his operating the PPTs, given his recent diagnosis. Ms Ogden emphasised that, until he’d received permission from the TCD, he wasn’t to operate them, with an investigation resulting if he did.

Subsequently, however, Ms Ogden received reports from other staff that the Claimant had been operating a PPT. This led her to hold a meeting with him on 19 July. At such time, the Claimant admitted to operating PPTs against the Respondent’s policy. 

Following the meeting, the Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing, being told that the allegations against him potentially constituted gross misconduct. Unfortunately, the situation impacted his health, leading to a period of sick leave for stress and anxiety between 20 July and 17 August, with the hearing being postponed until after such time.

The disciplinary hearing eventually took place on 21 August. During proceedings, the Claimant stated that the hearing was conducted in a “hostile manner.” An adjournment occurred 45 minutes into the hearing; however, when it recommenced, the Claimant learned he was being summarily dismissed.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments for ADHD Claim Brought

The Respondent’s decision to dismiss the Claimant was confirmed in writing, in a letter dated 22 August. It stated that he’d shown “a lack of remorse” during the hearing, withheld information, shown “a clear disregard” for Ms Ogden’s authority, and deliberately deceived the Respondent. Taking everything into account, the Respondent held “there was a clear breach in trust,” making a final written warning inappropriate.

The Claimant appealed his dismissal the following day, disputing that Ms Ogden had told him not to use the PPTs and asserting that the decision was “significantly disproportionate,” given his previous clean disciplinary record. After the appeal hearing occurred, it was found that the Claimant had forgotten Ms Ogden’s instruction and potentially misunderstood her.

Read More: Failure to Provide Reasonable Adjustments at Work Led to £32,000 Award for NHS Trainee

Nonetheless, Mr Alex Bowley, the appeal manager, remained concerned that the Claimant had acted in a way that he knew he shouldn’t have, which was below the expected standards of a deputy store manager. Consequently, he didn’t reverse the decision; instead, he offered to redeploy the Claimant as a shift manager on a final written warning. This was effectively a demotion.

As such, on 23 September, the Claimant confirmed that he wouldn’t be accepting Mr Bowley’s offer. He then brought his case to the employment tribunal, claiming that he’d been unfairly dismissed and hadn’t received reasonable adjustments for ADHD, among other things.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Unfair Dismissal Claim

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal first addressed the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim. Here, it found that the principal reason for dismissal was conduct, his use of the PPTs, which was a potentially fair reason. It also found that the Respondent had been clear in how the PPTs were to be operated and that the Claimant knew of the rules but chose not to adhere to them.

Despite this, the tribunal held that the dismissal was “procedurally unfair and not within the band of reasonable responses.” This was because:

  • Not all allegations were put to the Claimant during the investigation; he was aware of his unauthorised use of the PPTs, but not of the breach-of-trust allegation, in which he allegedly deliberately deceived Ms Ogden.
  • He had been dismissed, partly for the allegations he was unaware of.
  • Ms Ogden conducted the initial investigation despite being a witness to disputed facts.
  • The Respondent failed to consider the Claimant’s disability and its impact on his conversation with Ms Ogden.

While Mr Bowley properly considered the Claimant’s ADHD and almost remedied the situation, the tribunal considered his sanction—offering a demotion with a final written warning—unfair. Had the Respondent consistently applied its policy, said sanction would have been justified. However, the tribunal had found other instances of staff using the PPTs without authorisation and not receiving the same treatment.

Furthermore, it had been determined that Ms Leith would have only issued a final written warning had it not been for the alleged breach of trust, which the Claimant was unaware of. As a result, taking all of these elements into account, the tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim.

Failure to Provide Reasonable Adjustments for ADHD

Moving on, the tribunal considered the Respondent’s alleged failure to provide reasonable workplace adjustments. While many of the claims were dismissed, two were upheld. These concerned the Respondent’s failure to:

  • Seek pre-hearing advice on conducting the proceedings for a person with ADHD, ensuring that it understood the Claimant’s disability, his ability to follow the hearing, how questions should be framed, and that he had a fair opportunity to present his case.
  • Provide suitable breaks during the hearing to give the Claimant the thinking and reflection time required because of his disability.

While some of his other claims were dismissed, the Claimant also succeeded with his wrongful dismissal and part of his unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability claims. A separate hearing will now be scheduled to determine his compensation, although the tribunal noted that it would consider his contributory fault at such time.

What Are Reasonable Accommodations for ADHD?

Under the Equality Act 2010, employers must make reasonable workplace adjustments for eligible individuals when they know, or ought to have known, of their condition. Accommodations must be made for job applicants, contractors, workers, and employees alike who have a physical or mental impairment that substantially impacts their ability to complete regular, daily activities over the long term.

Read More: Autumn Budget 2025: What Employees Need to Know About Pay, Tax and Cost-of-Living Support

What’s deemed “reasonable” will depend on factors like how an individual’s condition impacts them, an employer’s resources, and the degree to which an adjustment would mitigate a disadvantage. That being said, some reasonable adjustments for ADHD could include:

  • Flexible start and finish times to accommodate fluctuating concentration levels
  • Noise-cancelling headphones to minimise sensory overload and improve attention
  • Regular check-ins with a manager to ensure adequate support is in place for when challenges arise

What to Do If Your Employer Refuses Workplace Adjustment

If an individual believes they’re entitled to reasonable adjustments for ADHD but their employer has failed to provide them, swift action is vital. While an employment tribunal claim is a last resort, strict time limits must be complied with to bring one.

Initially, the individual should gather evidence to support their case before taking their matter to their manager or HR. It may be that a misunderstanding has occurred, and an informal chat could resolve the issue quickly. If this is inappropriate or fails to provide a satisfactory outcome, though, the individual could raise a formal grievance. While a grievance offers another chance to resolve the matter internally, it places additional legal obligations on the employer.

Where internal avenues prove unsuccessful, the next step is usually to pursue early conciliation with Acas. This free and independent process is generally required before most tribunal claims can be brought, and offers another chance to find a resolution without the need for legal action. Crucially, initiating early conciliation through Acas also stops the clock on bringing a tribunal claim, offering more time to resolve the issue informally.

Where all else fails, the final step is to bring a tribunal claim. As mentioned, strict time limits, in addition to specific eligibility criteria, must be adhered to. However, if the individual prevails in their case, they may be awarded compensation, among other remedies. 

Reasonable Adjustments for ADHD Denied? Get Help

If you have requested workplace accommodations for ADHD and had them unlawfully denied, contact Redmans Solicitors today. As sector specialists, we can assess your case, answer your questions, and discuss how you could proceed.

It only takes a moment to begin your journey with us, simply:

The information on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.