A woman with a ADHD diagnosis has partially succeeded in her claim against her employer Capgemini UK on the basis of a failure to make reasonable adjustments. Other aspects of the claim, including harassment relating to disability, failed.
Bahar Khorram, a former executive at the IT company, is a cloud technologist with over 25 years’ experience of 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.
The central London employment tribunal heard that Khorram’s role at Capgemini was pre-sales lead in the cloud infrastructure services business unit – a role that attracted a £120,000 salary. She started work for the firm in June 2023 but was dismissed on 2 February 2024 after a series of probation meetings.
The tribunal was told that her ADHD could affect her performance “when tasks or objectives are ambiguous” as she tends to “over-complicate them”.
During her probation, initially set for six months, Khorram was set a number of tasks with tight deadlines that required her to multitask.
Presentation
She was due to make a presentation on 5 September 2023, but emailed line manager Steve Baldwin at 2:00am the night before to ask for the number of topics to be reduced or for it to be postponed. At 7.30am Mr Baldwin responded that she should give an overview of the topics.
However, Khorram cancelled the meeting, which Baldwin said in an email “gives the impression that it has not been treated seriously and/or managed properly”.
She then told Baldwin of her ADHD diagnosis and, in a probation review meeting, said that she was on medication that was causing her difficulties at work.
ADHD and autism
ADHD and autism diagnosis was evidence of impact
Apprentice with ADHD was fairly dismissed after lunch incident
Baldwin said he was “open to varying deadlines once they had medical input”, so Ms Khorram had an occupational health assessment in October 2023.
The assessor sent her employer a “list of potential adjustments” which included a one-hour or three-hour ADHD awareness training webinar for up to 15 people at a time, including colleagues and managers.
The sessions aimed to provide “practical knowledge and skills to create an inclusive and supportive workplace environment for individuals with neurodivergent conditions”.
The next month, she proposed in an email that Baldwin attend the “how to manage ADHD training” with her, to which 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.
On 3 January 2024, Khorram notified Ms Wright, HR engagement manager, of her intention to pursue a grievance. Her probation period was then extended until the end of the month.
The following week, Khorram attended an ADHD counselling session and on 16 January made a presentation which garnered negative feedback. A further presentation on 23 January was more favourably received.
Formal grievance
Khorram raised a formal grievance on 30 January in which she stated that there was a palpable tension between herself and Mr Baldwin right from the beginning, characterised by his intimidating demeanour and evident lack of confidence in her capability.
In an email exchange at this time, Wright tried to provide some reassurance about the probation meeting scheduled for 31 January, such as that there would be breaks and she could have someone there to support her. She wrote “I recognise that you have shared you are struggling with your mental health” – words that Khorram would later raise as part of her disability harassment complaint.
The claimant did not want to be placed in a situation where it was obviously being delivered because of her, with her team members” – tribunal judge Tim Adkin
Khorram did not attend the 31 January meeting, which went ahead in her absence, and she was dismissed because of “ongoing concerns about her performance”.
The tribunal found that the company’s failure to take up occupational health’s recommendation for ADHD training for staff was a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Training
Employment Judge Tim Adkin said: “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.
The judge found that the objectives which the claimant had been set in December 2023 were still live in January 2024. He stated: “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.
“We find that it would have been possible to arrange this training so that it did not put [Ms Khorram] in an awkward situation
“[Ms Khorram] herself did not need to attend the training, 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.”
Capgemini argued that it was not a failure not to implement neurodiversity training that Ms Khorram actively did not want. However, the judge found that Ms Wright knew that “what the claimant did not want was private delivery of a session delivered to team members including her directly”.
Attendees
In his judgment, he said: “Ms Wright had recorded that the claimant was happy to be one of many attendees. In other words it was not the training per se, but a specific situation in which the claimant was receiving the training as part of a small team. As Ms Wright understood it, the claimant did not want to be placed in a situation where it was obviously being delivered because of her, with her team members.”
On the nature of Ms Khorram’s ADHD itself, the judge took the view that her symptoms caused her “difficulty in understanding what was required of her in role unless it was presented with clarity and defined objectives”. She did substantially understand her role but “multitasking caused the claimant as someone with ADHD a substantial disadvantage for the claimant we find we accept her evidence that deadlines posed a difficulty for her.”
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more human resources jobs
