The number of disability discrimination cases received by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) for early conciliation from employment tribunals increased by 40.7% in 2024-25.
More than one in six workplace disputes (16%) now involve disability discrimination as employers struggle to get to grips with mental health issues among staff, according to law firm Nockolds. This compares to 9% in 2022-23.
The law firm’s analysis of data from Acas reveals that the number of early conciliation notifications it received relating to disability discrimination increased by 31%, from 15,361 in 2023-24 to 20,180 in 2024-25.
According to Nockolds, the surge in disability discrimination disputes being dealt with by Acas reflects a growing number of conditions being classified as disabilities in a way which would not have been considered the norm in previous years, including mental health.
Early conciliation is when Acas talks to the employer and employee about a dispute, with the aim of facilitating agreement without having to go to the employment tribunal.
The number of disability discrimination cases received by Acas for conciliation from the Employment Tribunal Service as a result of a claim has leapt by 41%, from 8,496 in 2023-24 to 11,958 in 2024-25.
Joanna Sutton, principal associate at Nockolds, said: “Although public understanding of mental health has grown significantly, many organisations are struggling to translate this awareness into meaningful workplace policies. Mental health support too often remains superficial or reactive, rather than embedded in workplace culture. With the economy sluggish and taxes rising, pressure to restore pre-pandemic productivity levels has led some employers to scale back flexible-working arrangements, sometimes disregarding individual wellbeing. This disconnect between expectations and support mechanisms is increasingly contributing to workplace tensions, grievances, and formal disputes.”
Amendments made to the Disability Discrimination Act in 2005 prompted employers to make physical changes, for example ramps, lifts, and accessible toilets, designed to accommodate physical impairments.
“While these adjustments were vital, they also reflected a narrow interpretation of disability,” she added. ”The now-common phrase ‘not all disabilities are visible’ marks a cultural shift, but one that arrived slowly and unevenly. Many workplaces are still catching up.”
The Equality Act 2010 defines disability as a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on an individual’s ability to conduct normal day-to-day activities.
Despite growing awareness of non-visible disabilities, which many conscientious employers are adapting to, the definition of mental impairment continues to catch many employers off guard.
Sutton said: “While conditions like dementia and schizophrenia are widely acknowledged as serious mental health disorders, there’s increasing recognition that less overt or episodic conditions, such as depression, anxiety, and even menopause, can also qualify as disabilities under the Equality Act 2010, provided they meet the statutory threshold.”
She said that threshold is “inherently subjective” and that disability status must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, often requiring medical evidence and tribunal scrutiny.
“This ambiguity creates a legal and ethical tension. On one side, it may embolden a minority of disingenuous claimants to exploit the system, overstating symptoms to gain protection or leverage, while on the other, it risks legitimate conditions being dismissed by employers which are either unaware of their obligations or sceptical of invisible impairments.”
According to Nockolds, the surge in disability discrimination cases, particularly those linked to mental health, highlights the need for improved training of line managers and HR teams. Many line managers lack sufficient training in employment law as it relates to mental health, especially around the nuanced obligations under the Equality Act.
Sutton said: “When concerns relating to mental health are raised, managers may be ill-prepared to respond appropriately by making reasonable adjustments or worried about saying the wrong thing. The result is a growing risk of litigation, not necessarily due to malice, but due to ignorance or procedural inertia. Addressing this requires structured, scenario-based training and clear protocols for managing disclosures with empathy and legal precision.”
