British workers who are sensitive to rejection can sue for disability discrimination, according to a new tribunal judgment.
Employees in the UK can sue for discrimination under employment law if they have ‘rejection sensitivity’, which is a symptom of ADHD, the ruling states.
Rejection sensitivity is described as when an individual experiences an acute emotional response to any perceived criticism, disapproval, or rejection, such as intense feelings of anxiety, sadness or anger.
The new ruling comes after Lidl worker Ryan Toghill, who has ADHD and rejection sensitivity, won a disability discrimination case after he was sacked.
He is now set to receive compensation from the supermarket giant after successfully suing them at Cardiff Employment Tribunal.
A judge found that Mr Toghill had been unfairly and wrongfully dismissed, subject to unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, and the firm had failed to make reasonable adjustments.
Mr Toghill began working at Lidl in Newport, Monmouthshire, in October 2019 as a shift manager before being promoted to deputy store manager in June 2022.
The former Lidl employee had been diagnosed with ADHD in May 2022 and, as part of the condition, experiences rejection sensitivity.
The tribunal heard that within the Newport store’s warehouse, employees used powered pallet trucks (PPTs) – heavy, powerful pieces of equipment weighing approximately one tonne.
Staff attended PPT training every six months – yet Mr Toghill said that it was ‘commonplace’ for people to use it without training.
Mr Toghill was diagnosed with a hernia in July 2023 and was transferred to Lidl’s store in Ystrad Mynach around the same time.
He continued using the powered trucks at work which, due to his hernia, was judged to be dangerous, and an investigation was launched.
This led to him being signed off sick with stress and anxiety for four weeks, the tribunal heard.
At a disciplinary hearing in August 2023, he was sacked, with bosses citing a ‘lack of remorse’ from Mr Toghill.
They also claimed he had gone against the instructions of his boss, withheld information within the disciplinary hearing and engaged in ‘deliberate deception’.
After an appeal failed, Mr Toghill was offered a demoted role as a shift manager which bosses argued was ‘better suited’ to him – but the employee saw this as discriminatory and rejected the position.
Mr Toghill then took his case to the employment tribunal in Cardiff.
In a judgment published last week, Employment Judge Samantha Moore said Mr Toghill was put at a ‘substantial disadvantage’ during the disciplinary process because of his disability.
The judge said that Lidl did not fully appreciate he had ADHD and side effects of it so mistakenly thought he was showing a lack of remorse.
Judge Moore said ‘Lidl failed to take into account Mr Toghill’s disability’.
She said that as a result of his ADHD, Mr Toghill ‘experiences “rejection sensitivity” which is intense sensitivity to the impression of being rejected, harassed, or criticised.
‘It also caused [Mr Toghill] feelings of extreme anxiety in social or work settings due to the belief that no one likes him.’
The judgement contined: ‘He experiences “ADHD paralysis” – which is an inability to initiate, complete, or sustain tasks due to overwhelming feelings of anxiety, stress, or mental fatigue.
‘[He] needs time to process questions. It often seems as though [Mr Toghill] is not listening when he is spoken to directly, and he will have difficulty concentrating on a conversation.’
Mr Toghill also needs ‘extra time to complete detailed tasks’, finds it difficult to ‘sustain attention’, and ‘can fail to follow through on instructions’, the judge added.
In her ruling, Judge Moore said: ‘This Tribunal considers that on the face of it, [Lidl] were perfectly entitled to denote use of the PPT truck on the shop floor as gross misconduct.
‘It was obvious that this was a policy [staff] take very seriously and rightly so.
‘[Mr Toghill’s] ADHD does mean he has communication difficulties… ADHD is a neurodiverse condition that affects people in many different ways.
‘The impact on one person, with the same disability, may not necessarily be the same as the impact on another.
‘We find that [Mr Toghill’s] ADHD did put him at a substantial disadvantage during the disciplinary procedure, specifically the disciplinary hearing and applied sanction of dismissal but not the investigation or appeal stage.’
Other complaints of unfavourable treatment due to disability and direct disability discrimination were unsuccessful.
Mr Toghill told the Daily Mail: ‘Regarding the judgment, it’s of course great to receive some kind of justice for the treatment I was subjected to.
‘It’s a little frustrating and disappointing how backlogged the system is, as this took around 18 months from start to finish, which really shows how frequently things like this are happening.
‘I would say I’m ‘content’ with the end result, not happy. The sum awarded doesn’t cover the amount of money I lost – and continue to lose – as unfortunately I’m still out of work.
‘My health has dramatically declined since the incident and I still find myself unable to seek employment.’
He added the experience has meant he is now able to help others in similar situations: ‘Due to having ADHD and little else to do, I hyper-focused the hell out of my case despite having a solicitor, as it’s the only thing I could focus on at all,’ he said.
‘The result of that, is my knowledge of employment law is pretty great, and I’ve actually been trying to help others in similar situations. I’ve had a few people reach out to me on Reddit asking for my advice.
‘In a perfect world, I might look into making a career out of it, but at the moment my health has to come first as it’s very much holding me back.’
