Tribunal warns against judging autistic candidates by neurotypical standards

A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision is a timely reminder that employers should avoid judging neurodivergent candidates through a neurotypical lens.

In Bryce v Coventry City Council, an unsuccessful job applicant with Asperger’s Syndrome and dyslexia argued that his disabilities caused stress in interview situations. The original Tribunal dismissed this, relying on an interviewer’s view that he appeared confident.

The EAT disagreed, finding that the Tribunal failed to consider whether an autistic candidate might display stress differently from a neurotypical person. It also questioned why more weight was given to an interviewer’s impressions than to the candidate’s own evidence about how his conditions affected him.

While Mr Bryce’s reasonable adjustments claim was unsuccessful, the EAT clarified an important point for employers: a candidate’s request for adjustments does not define the full extent of an employer’s duty. Employers must consider all reasonable adjustments that may help remove disadvantage, not just those specifically requested.

Key takeaway

Employers should be cautious about making assumptions based on appearance or behaviour alone. Stress, anxiety and other disability-related impacts may not always present in expected ways, particularly for neurodivergent candidates. A fair recruitment process requires both an open mind and a proactive approach to reasonable adjustments.