ADHD, Misconduct & Dismissal: Madden v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2024] Employment tribunal claims referencing neurodivergent conditions are rising sharply, with ADHD-related claims allegedly increasing by 750% in the past 5-years. Recent Employment Tribunal User Group minutes stated that disability-related claims were the most common type of claims being received by the Tribunal, accounting for nearly 50% of all claims being received. The case of Madden v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis serves as an important warning to employers about how to handle misconduct processes where an employee’s disability may be a relevant factor. Facts of the Case Mr Martin Madden was a Quality Control Officer at the Metropolitan Police’s Police National Computer Bureau (PNCB), employed from November 2001 until his dismissal for gross misconduct on 6 February 2024. Between 2022 and early 2023, several female colleagues raised concerns about inappropriate comments he had made. These included remarks about colleagues’ appearances and messages with a sexual or flirtatious tone sent via workplace channels and social media. Mr Madden accepted responsibility for his comments and explained that his ADHD had made it difficult for him to recognise that his conduct was inappropriate. Mr Madden’s version of events was supported by psychotherapist and ADHD specialist who concluded that his condition made it harder for him to stop himself saying things impulsively. A Judge ruled that Mr Madden had been unfairly dismissed, in part due to the following: A nine-month delay between notifying Mr Madden of the investigation and holding the disciplinary hearing, which had caused him significant additional distress and adversely affected his mental health. Key medical evidence was not considered by the disciplinary panel, including a letter from Mr Madden’s solicitor explaining the link between his ADHD and his behaviour, and a statement from his psychotherapist. The Tribunal found that this evidence could have affected the outcome. The Judge said that: “ His social boundaries were blurred and he did not observe social cues. He did not appreciate that his actions were inappropriate in the workplace. He did not realise what impact his comments might have on those he treated as his work friends. Once the claimant was explicitly told how the comments were being interpreted, he understood and stopped .” Lessons for Employers Do not treat disability as a separate issue to be addressed only if raised by the employee. Where you are aware as the employer, or should be aware, of a disability, actively consider how it may be connected to the conduct in question before taking any disciplinary action. That may involve the commissioning or requesting of relevant medical evidence. Once obtained, this should be actively considered by the decision-maker and included in their disciplinary pack prior to any disciplinary or appeal hearing. Although it was not the main feature of the judgment, the case also highlights that nine-month gap between notification of disciplinary proceedings and the disciplinary hearing itself was a significant procedural issue. Delays can exacerbate health conditions, impair the employee’s ability to engage fairly, and undermine the overall fairness of the process. As always, this advice is general in nature and will need to be tailored to any one situation. As an RMI member you have access to the RMI Legal advice line, as well as several industry experts for your assistance. Should you find yourself in the situation above, contact us at any stage for advice and assistance as appropriate. Motor Industry Legal Services Motor Industry Legal Services provides fully comprehensive legal advice and representation to UK motor retailers for one annual fee. It is the only regulated law firm in the UK which specialises in motor law and motor trade law. MILS currently advises over 1,000 individual businesses within the sector as well as the Retail Motor Industry Federation (RMI) and its members.