A Lidl deputy manager who was dismissed without proper grounds and treated unfavourably because of his disability has been awarded more than £45,000 by an employment tribunal.
Ryan Toghill had been working at the retailer’s Newport branch when, in 2022, he received an ADHD diagnosis. As part of his condition, he experiences rejection sensitivity, which can trigger strong emotional reactions to perceived criticism or disapproval.
Rejection sensitivity is described as an intense emotional and psychological response to either real or imagined rejection.
Staff at the Newport warehouse regularly used powered pallet trucks, which are governed by strict safety rules due to their weight and force. Each machine weighs around a tonne. Although refresher training was required every six months, Toghill told the tribunal that it was common for colleagues to operate the trucks without up-to-date training.
In July 2023, after being diagnosed with a hernia, he was moved to Lidl’s Ystrad Mynach store. Despite the risks posed by his condition, he continued to use the pallet trucks, prompting an internal investigation.
He was then signed off for four weeks with stress and anxiety and later invited to a disciplinary hearing in August 2023. Toghill asked for his partner to attend as a disability advocate, but she was recovering from surgery and unable to join. His request to postpone the meeting was refused on the basis that it had already been delayed once.
He told the tribunal that the meeting was conducted in a “hostile manner”, despite him having previously explained in a flexible working appeal that formal meetings were difficult for him because of his ADHD.
Toghill acknowledged that he had used the trucks several times and knew he should not have done so. After a brief nine‑minute adjournment, he was summarily dismissed.
The dismissal letter accused him of withholding information, showing no remorse, and breaching trust by using the trucks, concluding that a final warning would not be appropriate.
He appealed, and Lidl offered to redeploy him as a shift manager, a demotion, and issue a final warning. He declined.
Employment Judge Moore found that Lidl had failed to properly consider the effects of Toghill’s ADHD and had wrongly interpreted his behaviour as a lack of remorse.
The tribunal accepted that his ADHD and rejection sensitivity caused significant anxiety in workplace interactions “due to the belief that no one likes him”. It also noted that he experiences ADHD paralysis, which can make it difficult to begin or complete tasks when overwhelmed by stress or fatigue.
“It often seems as though the claimant is not listening when he is spoken to directly, and he will have difficulty concentrating on a conversation (especially long sentences/stories/explanations that require a higher level of focus) and afterwards, not knowing what a conversation was about and needing things to be repeated,” the judgment said.
Judge Moore added: “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. [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 [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.”
The tribunal upheld his claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal, as well as a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Following a reconsideration of the remedy, Lidl Great Britain was ordered to pay £45,150. This included a basic award of £1,930, a compensatory award of £16,400, and £20,000 for injury to feelings, plus interest.
Francesca Wild, senior associate solicitor at Morr & Co, said the case reflected a growing trend towards a “more stringent, employee-focused approach”.
“This case and those like it should serve as a reminder to employers that the symptoms and impact of a disability on an individual can be varied and far-reaching. Those symptoms or impacts may also not necessarily be obvious to the employer or the people who work for them, especially in cases of ‘hidden’ disabilities such as neurodiverse conditions. The upshot of this trend is that employers will need to think very carefully about the steps they take in connection with internal processes where they involve a disabled employee.”
Ross Spiller, a solicitor at Mayo Wynne Baxter, noted that although the appeal process corrected several earlier mistakes, “the decision remained flawed due to the inconsistency of sanctions applied for similar misconduct”.
He added: “The tribunal was also critical of the employer’s failure to make reasonable adjustments to the disciplinary hearing to accommodate Toghill’s ADHD diagnosis. Sufficient steps must be taken by the employer to ensure all reasonable adjustments are made for a disciplinary hearing.
“If an employer fails to do so, an employee will be able to argue any decision made following the process is flawed, as they were not able to fully participate. This is particularly poignant if the individual’s condition means they have communication difficulties. The case demonstrates how the particular symptoms of a condition can vary from person to person and an employer is required to consider how a condition impacts an individual personally.”
The article was first published on 3 December 2025 and has since been updated to reflect the tribunal’s remedy decision.
This article is based on a piece written for Personnel Today
