517 tribunal claims in 2025: dyslexia cases rose too

Five hundred and seventeen. That's how many UK employment tribunal claims tied to neurodiversity were lodged in 2025, according to HM Courts and Tribunals Service records analysed by law firm Irwin Mitchell. Five years earlier, in 2020, the figure was 265.

If your manager tells you discrimination claims are rare now that awareness training exists, the caseload disagrees. Dyslexia sits inside that rise too, even though its own numbers don't move in a straight line.

Five years of data doesn't move as one smooth trend. It moves in fits, drops, and catch-up years, and 2025 was a catch-up year across almost every neurodivergent condition tracked.

The numbers behind the headline

Irwin Mitchell published its analysis in February 2026, and Personnel Today reported it the same month. Neurodiversity-linked tribunal claims rose 95% between 2020 and 2025. The single-year jump from 2024 to 2025 alone was 19%, the steepest rise in the five-year dataset.

Autism and ADHD drove most of that growth. Autism-related claims hit a record 121 cases in 2025. ADHD claims reached a record 118 the same year.

Dyslexia followed a different path. Claims peaked in 2023, then fell back in 2024. They rose again in 2025, though the published analysis didn't break out the exact figure.

Employment partner Jenny Arrowsmith called the trend "a clear warning sign for employers." A warning sign only changes anything if someone reads it before the next claim lands.

None of this data separates claims filed from claims won. A rising number only shows more people are willing to start the process.

If you've held off on a complaint because you assumed you'd be the only one, the numbers say otherwise.

Why dyslexia's line on the chart isn't straight

A dip in one year, inside a five-year total that nearly doubled, tells you less than it looks like it does. Dyslexia claims fell back in 2024, after peaking in 2023.

Irwin Mitchell's own summary is careful about what that dip means. Dyslexia "remains one of the most frequently cited conditions overall," the analysis notes, even with volumes below its 2023 high.

Some of that swing is also about who feels safe enough to file. A dyslexic employee who has spent years masking difficulties often doesn't complain until things become unworkable, which can make claims cluster in bad years rather than spread evenly.

A quiet year in the data doesn't prove your workplace fixed anything. What actually matters is what's in place for you right now, in writing.

Most dyslexia-linked claims still turn on the same ground: an adjustment that was promised, delayed, or never delivered. The Equality Act 2010 duty doesn't require a formal diagnosis before it applies, only that the employer knew, or reasonably should have known, that the employee was disabled.

Don't judge your own adjustments by a stranger's quiet year in a national dataset. Check what's actually in writing for you, right now.

What's pushing the number up

Two forces sit behind a rising tribunal count. Either employers are getting adjustments wrong more often, or employees are getting more willing to escalate when they fail. The Access to Work backlog points toward the second explanation.

About 66,000 Access to Work applications were waiting for a decision in March 2026, up from 21,700 in March 2022. The Department for Work and Pensions is quoting waits of up to 37 weeks, against a 25-working-day target. That's according to the Public Accounts Committee's report, published 12 June 2026.

Access to Work also pays out as a reimbursement grant. The employee, employer, or a direct provider is repaid only after an approved cost is already incurred, which adds friction while an adjustment is contested.

A slow Access to Work funding route pushes some employees straight to a grievance instead of waiting for the system to catch up. That's a UK-specific pressure, tied to Access to Work funding rather than US law.

The US shows a similar pattern through different data. EEOC merit resolutions citing autism rose from 0.4% of the total in 2016 to 1.5% in 2023, reported by law firm Ogletree in April 2025.

None of this is cheap for an employer to defend either. Legal costs and management time mount up long before any compensation is awarded. A tribunal judgment carries its own reputational cost too.

That combination is part of why unions and lawyers keep pointing at these figures when they push for faster adjustments.

Whichever side of the Atlantic you're on, fewer people are letting a refused adjustment go unchallenged.

A third driver: AI hiring tools face new scrutiny

AI-driven hiring tools add a newer source of claims. A federal judge in California let disability and age discrimination claims against Workday's AI hiring screening tool proceed to discovery in June 2026, in a case covering an estimated 1.1 billion job applications.

That case is about screening at the hiring stage, before anyone is offered a job. It shows regulators and courts are willing to treat an algorithm's decision the way they'd treat a human manager's decision. That changes what counts as evidence.

If a hiring process ever felt like it was testing your formatting more than your ability, you're not imagining a pattern. Courts are starting to ask the same question.

One more thing: US and UK routes end very differently

If a claim does reach a hearing, UK and US outcomes diverge sharply. US ADA damages for disability discrimination are capped by employer size, at $50,000 to $300,000 combined, under the Civil Rights Act of 1991. UK Equality Act 2010 tribunal awards carry no cap at all.

That's why a UK case like NSL's, or the £96,128 Fife Employment Access Trust award below, can run into six figures once compensation for injury to feelings is added. The number of claims filed and the size of any single award are two different stories.

A damages cap changes what a claim is worth pursuing for. The legality of a refused adjustment is a separate question entirely.

What "almost doubled" looks like up close

NSL Ltd, a parking enforcement contractor, printed colour-coded GPS evidence in black and white, with no key to read it. It used that evidence to dismiss a severely dyslexic Civil Enforcement Officer in 2019.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the finding that his dismissal was unfair. The judgment came in September 2026, seven years after he lost his job. He spent most of that time waiting instead of working.

NSL isn't an outlier either. In February 2026, a Dundee tribunal ordered Fife Employment Access Trust, a charity that helps disabled people into work, to pay £96,128 combined to a dyslexic programme manager and her support worker, after finding it fabricated allegations against both.

A real example

Seven years between a dismissal and a final ruling isn't unusual for a contested case that goes through appeal. A rising tribunal count only measures how many people are willing to start that clock, even knowing how long it can run.

A tribunal claim is often the last option, tried only after a written request and a grievance have already failed.

What this means for you

If your employer let an adjustment slide because no one had complained before, the tribunal data says that excuse is wearing thin. Put your request in writing, date it, keep a copy, and note who you sent it to.

If you haven't disclosed yet, the disclosure decision guide covers what to say and when, before you put anything in writing.

If it goes nowhere after a reasonable follow-up, you have free options before a tribunal. UK employees can start ACAS early conciliation at no cost. US employees can raise a charge with the EEOC, or call the Job Accommodation Network for free advice.

Tribunals in England and Wales are required to apply the Equal Treatment Bench Book when weighing a dyslexic claimant's evidence, a rule confirmed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Habib v Dave Whelan Sports Ltd in August 2023. That's a small technical point, but it matters if your case ever turns on how clearly you explain yourself under pressure.

Keep four things on file if you can: the message where you first asked, any reply you got, a note of any meeting where it came up with the date, and whatever task or deadline triggered the request in the first place.

A written record today is worth more than a verbal promise from six months ago, especially if this ever has to go further than your manager's desk.