Claimant v Wind River UK Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant had not established he was disabled under s.6 Equality Act 2010. There was no clinical diagnosis of ASD/Asperger's or ADHD, only self-diagnosis. The tribunal found insufficient evidence of substantial adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities arising from any mental impairment. All disability discrimination claims were therefore dismissed.
The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed the threshold test: he did not prove he was a disabled person under s.6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant dates. The alleged discriminatory acts occurred between late 2020 and April 2024, but no disability status was established.
This claim was listed for full hearing in December 2025 and was not determined at this preliminary hearing. Only the disability status issue was determined.
Whistleblowing detriment and constructive dismissal claims were listed for full hearing in December 2025 and not determined at this preliminary hearing.
Unlawful deduction from wages claims were listed for full hearing in December 2025 and not determined at this preliminary hearing.
Facts
A 46-year-old Field Applications Engineer worked for Wind River UK Ltd from April 2019 to June 2024. He claimed to have Asperger's/ASD and ADHD, relying on self-diagnosis from 2023 onwards. GP records showed he first sought clinical assessment in June 2023, but no diagnosis had been obtained by the hearing in July 2025. He gave evidence of communication difficulties at work (talking over others, particularly in 2021), lack of empathy, hyper-focus then losing interest, excessive mobile phone use, and untidy handwriting. He had, however, learned to mask some behaviours.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled under s.6 Equality Act 2010. There was no clinical diagnosis, only self-diagnosis insufficient to establish the pleaded impairments of ASD/ADHD. The claimant failed to prove substantial adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities. The communication difficulties at work in 2021 were not substantial (addressed informally, no recurrence), and other alleged effects (mobile phone use, untidy handwriting) were minor or trivial. All disability discrimination claims were dismissed.
Practical note
Self-diagnosis of neurodiverse conditions without clinical assessment is generally insufficient to establish disability, particularly where alleged effects are minor, isolated to a short period, or successfully masked through coping strategies.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6004210/2024
- Decision date
- 3 December 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Field Applications Engineer
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister