Mr S Morris v Mitchells and Butlers Retail Ltd — 2026

At a preliminary hearing on 12 August 2026, Employment Judge Chivers determined whether Mr S Morris was disabled under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during his employment with Mitchells and Butlers Retail Limited, from 14 July 2024 to 29 April 2025. The tribunal found that he was disabled because of ADHD, but not because of autism. The findings were confined to disability status and did not determine the merits of the underlying claims. No remedy was awarded or assessed.

The respondent accepted that Mr Morris had childhood diagnoses of ADHD and autism. The tribunal considered those diagnoses alongside his evidence, his partner Madison Dockray’s evidence, a university support plan and a mental-health assessment from 2020. The earlier documents did not determine the extent of the effects during employment. Much of his impact statement lacked detail about frequency, severity, duration and practical consequences. His use of artificial intelligence to edit the statement did not itself make it unreliable.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Morris misplaced essential work keys on a near-daily basis, that a till key fob was replaced more than 30 times, and that one search for site keys lasted about two hours. This recurring difficulty with remembering, organising and safeguarding important items was more than minor or trivial. Taking account of the diagnosis and the evidence of a persistent pattern, the tribunal attributed it to ADHD. Ms Dockray’s evidence established a longer-standing difficulty which existed before employment and continued afterwards, satisfying the requirement that the substantial adverse effect had lasted, or was likely to last, at least 12 months. A key safe used at home did not remove the substantial effect found during employment.

The evidence about missed meals, personal-care routines and delayed dental treatment did not establish the required effects attributable to ADHD or autism. In particular, the tribunal could not reliably distinguish their causes from depression, low mood or other circumstances. It also found gaps in the evidence about the frequency and practical consequences of several of these difficulties during the relevant period.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Morris sometimes sought reassurance before answering emails or complaints because he feared appearing blunt or inappropriate, and attributed this difficulty to autism. The evidence did not establish its frequency, whether he could respond without reassurance, the additional time involved or material consequences for communication. The tribunal therefore found an autism-related adverse effect, but not a substantial one. Having considered both conditions separately and together, it found that autism did not materially add to the substantial adverse effect established through ADHD.