In this article, we consider how EPLI insurers will be at risk if their policyholders fail to implement employee training as a reasonable adjustment to help disabled employees.
Disability is a growing area of focus for employers and employees. At its peak in April-June 2024, the Labour Force Survey found that 24.8% of the working-age population in the UK, or 10.5 million people, were disabled, with about 50% higher rates of disability prevalence than in 2013.
The Employment of Disabled People 2024 report shows there were 5.5 million disabled people in employment in the UK between July and September last year — an increase of 310,000 in a year. In the face of increasing numbers of disabled workers, a recent tribunal case highlights the challenges around the necessity to make reasonable adjustments, and the risks to employers and their EPLI Insurers if they fail to do so.
The case
Ms B Khorram v Capgemini UK plc: 6004705/2024
(Written reasons relating to the Judgment - released 21 July 2025).
The Facts
Bahar Khorram (the Claimant), a former executive and cloud technologist with over 25 years’ experience of solution architecture and pre-sales roles, commenced employment with Capgemini (the Respondent) in June 2023, as presales market lead, a position that paid £120,000 annually.
In November 2022, she was diagnosed with ADHD. Her condition significantly impacted her ability to multitask, manage unstructured tasks and cope with ambiguity, which caused Bahar anxiety and reduced her ability to complete tasks on time without appropriate support. The Central London Employment Tribunal was told that her ADHD could affect her performance “when tasks or objectives are ambiguous” as she tends to “over-complicate them”.
In a meeting on 28 July 2023, the Claimant’s objectives for her six-month probation period were discussed. Following the meeting on, 8 September 2023 she informed her line manager about her diagnosis. A workplace needs assessment was conducted, which recommended several potential reasonable adjustments, including setting achievable tasks and providing neurodiversity and ADHD awareness training. The aim of the training was to help the Claimant’s colleagues understand how best to work with her and reduce some of the disadvantages she faced in the workplace. The Claimant wanted to attend the ADHD workplace coaching sessions but was uncomfortable attending the sessions with other team members.
Despite continued efforts to meet her probation objectives, the Claimant complained about obstacles and negative feedback. This resulted in the Claimant sending an email to her line manager, complaining about her situation and suggesting that she and her manager attend the ADHD training together. Her line manager never replied in detail to her email, but her probationary period was extended to 10 January 2024, when it was found that the Claimant was several months behind completing her probation objectives.
Following the final probation review on 31 January 2024, the Claimant was notified in writing that her employment was terminated with immediate effect, and with payment in lieu of notice.
The Employment Tribunal Hearing
The Employment Tribunal was informed that there had been “palpable tension” between the Claimant and her line manager from the beginning, and the Claimant had complained about “intimidating behaviour and lack of confidence in her capability”. She felt she had been presented with unattainable tasks and said the probation period had been more like an interview process. The Claimant felt she had been dissuaded from raising a grievance, (which was unsuccessful) and that she had been treated unfairly, bullied and discriminated against.
The Employment Tribunal panel found that the Claimant was expected to multitask and work to deadlines, which placed her, as someone with ADHD, at a “substantial disadvantage” and that additional performance objectives were also determined to be “setting her up to fail”.
Crucially, the Tribunal noted that neither the neurodiversity nor ADHD awareness training suggested in the workplace assessment report was implemented by the Respondent, adding that the cost would not have been prohibitively difficult for the business. This omission also amounted to a breach of discrimination law.
During the hearing, in response to the claim, the Respondent argued that the training was not implemented because the Claimant had said that she did not want it. However, the Tribunal disagreed because it was told that she “did not want to be placed in a situation where it was obviously being delivered because of her with her team members. The Tribunal believed that it would have been possible to arrange the training so that it did not put the Claimant in an awkward situation, noting that the Claimant herself did not need to attend the training, and that the point of training was to educate the team.
Relevance and Conclusion
Most clients seeking employment backed insurance products are advised to take legal advice and to implement adequate policies. This case confirms that policies alone are not enough, to help an employer successfully defend a discrimination claim. Employee training is key to the successful implementation of any employment related policy, such training can be in person, or online and if possible, in line with any OHU recommendation if health, or disability is an issue. Both employment policies and staff training should be reviewed at regular intervals, for example every 18 months or two years, or if there are changes to the relevant area of employment law. Equally this case demonstrates the importance of not only conducting workplace needs assessments but also ensuring that the measures identified are implemented.
A failure to update policies, and deliver training at appropriate intervals could be costly for both insurers and employers.