Delivery driver dismissed for lateness: ADHD discrimination claim fails
A delivery driver with ADHD was dismissed for persistent lateness while on a final warning. The tribunal rejected her claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, finding the employer acted reasonably.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was diagnosed with ADHD and had it since adolescence.
- The claimant was dismissed for unacceptable levels of lateness while on a live final warning.
- The majority of the claimant's lateness was recorded as due to traffic.
- The claimant did not communicate a link between her ADHD and lateness at the time.
- The respondent had knowledge of the claimant's ADHD but not of a substantial disadvantage.
- The claimant's grievance did not explicitly refer to disability or the Equality Act.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a delivery driver at Euro Car Parts Christchurch branch.
-
First complaint of shouting/swearing
Respondent received a complaint that claimant shouted and swore at a colleague; no formal action taken.
-
Final written warning for conduct
Claimant received a final written warning for poor driving score and behaviour/bad language.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised a grievance alleging bullying, victimisation and harassment; later expanded to include ADHD.
-
Informal warning for timekeeping
Claimant received an informal warning regarding her timekeeping.
-
Disciplinary meeting for lateness
Claimant attended a disciplinary meeting with Kirk Dunford regarding persistent lateness.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for unacceptable levels of lateness on the back of a live final warning.
-
Appeal dismissed
Claimant's appeal against dismissal was not upheld.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
Claimant presented her claim to the employment tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the driver's dismissal for lateness was unfair and whether Euro Car Parts discriminated against her due to her ADHD, including claims of discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and victimisation.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, including unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and victimisation.
Key reasons:
- The driver was on a live final warning for conduct, and her lateness was unacceptable.
- She did not tell her employer that her ADHD caused her lateness, so the employer could not be expected to make adjustments.
- The employer knew she had ADHD but not that it placed her at a substantial disadvantage.
- The dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for an employer.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have a disability that affects your work, tell your employer clearly how it impacts you – they cannot make adjustments for something they do not know about.
- A live final warning for conduct makes it much harder to challenge a later dismissal for similar issues.
- Employers are expected to act on known disabilities, but only if they know about the specific disadvantage.
- Tribunals will look at whether the employer's decision was within a range of reasonable responses, not whether it was the perfect decision.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the importance of clear communication between employees and employers about health conditions. The delivery driver had ADHD, a recognised disability, but she did not tell Euro Car Parts that her lateness was linked to her condition. Instead, she attributed it to traffic. The employer, aware of her ADHD but not of any specific impact on timekeeping, treated the lateness as a conduct issue. When she was dismissed while on a final warning, she claimed unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
What the employer did right
Euro Car Parts followed a fair process: they gave warnings, held disciplinary meetings, and considered her appeal. The tribunal noted that the employer had no reason to think the lateness was disability-related because the driver herself did not make that connection at the time. The employer's knowledge of her ADHD alone was not enough to trigger a duty to make adjustments – they needed to know she was at a substantial disadvantage.
Why the result matters
This decision reinforces that employers are not expected to be mind-readers. Employees who want reasonable adjustments must explain the link between their disability and the specific workplace issue. It also shows that a final warning for conduct can justify dismissal for further misconduct, even if the underlying behaviour is linked to a disability – provided the employer acted reasonably on the information they had.
Similar cases
Security officer dismissed after back injury: tribunal finds unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A security officer with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a back injury. The tribunal also found that CIS Security Ltd failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against him arising from his disability.
Dental nurse's constructive dismissal and discrimination claims rejected by tribunal
A dental nurse who resigned after securing another job failed to prove she was constructively dismissed or that her employer discriminated against her. All claims were dismissed.
Plumber with back injury forced to resign after employer ignored adjustments
A plumber with six years' service was awarded £134,411 after his employer failed to implement occupational health recommendations, cut his sick pay, and ignored his grievance. The tribunal found constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
Missed promotion while off sick: constructive dismissal claim fails
An occupational therapy assistant who missed a promotion opportunity while on sick leave because she did not check her work email has lost her constructive dismissal claim. The tribunal ruled the oversight was unintentional.