Direct, Not Difficult - Autism and Workplace Communication

What this case actually was (and what it was not)

Dr C Sandford brought claims against the Met Office for disability discrimination arising from disability (Equality Act 2010, s.15) and harassment related to disability (s.26).

The Tribunal upheld:

• harassment related to disability, and

• discrimination arising from disability in relation to two acts: an email notifying

potential disciplinary action, and the decision to no longer support her as Co-Lead of the Autism Network.

Remedy was left for a separate hearing.

Crucially, it was not in dispute that Dr Sandford was disabled under the Equality Act by reason of autism.

The “plot” that led to Tribunal findings

This case did not begin with a dramatic misconduct incident. It began with something that seems administratively boring until you remember humans have nervous systems: an office move.

In November 2023, the Met Office decided to sub-let part of its building, meaning teams would need to move by Spring 2024. Dr Sandford and a colleague, in their roles as Co-Leads of the Autism Network, raised concerns about the lack of detail and how reasonable adjustments would be handled.

In February 2024, staff were told science teams would move into E2, which had previously been a dedicated quiet zone. They were also told the information was confidential and could not be posted on Viva Engage (the internal platform) until a wider announcement.

Then timing tightened. The Diversity Council was informed on a Friday afternoon that changes were due the following Tuesday, creating urgent concerns about whether people using quiet space (informally or as an adjustment) would be disadvantaged. A request was made to delay, including explicit references to how routine and stability can matter for autistic and other neurodivergent staff, and why unmanaged changes could turn the space “chaotic”. The move was delayed.

At an all-staff briefing, the CEO used language encouraging “a sense of proportion”, describing moving within the building as “a pretty minor disruption” for “most of us”.

That phrase “the rest of us” became a flashpoint. Staff responded that it risked “othering”

disabled colleagues, and the Tribunal later found it was reasonable for this kind of messaging to create a sense of “otherness” for neurodivergent staff.

A later meeting between Dr Sandford, a colleague and the Chief People Officer was a key turning point, with both sides upset. The following day, an email was sent recording deep upset and referencing potential action.

From there, the dispute crystallised into a familiar workplace story: leadership saw “impact” and “tone” as a behaviour problem; the claimant saw disability-linked communication differences being treated as misconduct.

The part employers and autistic staff should highlight in fluorescent marker

Here is the single most important legal and practical spine of the judgment:

The Tribunal explicitly treats “how she communicates and is perceived to communicate” as the relevant “something” arising from autism, and records that the Respondent accepted this.

That matters because s.15 Equality Act claims are not only about disability in the abstract. They are about unfavourable treatment “because of something arising in consequence of” disability, unless the employer can justify it as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

So the Tribunal had to look at what the employer was reacting to, and whether that reaction was

fair, necessary, and proportionate.

What “autistic communication style” meant in this case

The judgment does not treat autistic communication style as one magic trait. It treats it as a bundle of features that can be misread in mixed-neurotype interactions.

The claimant’s evidence (the “bundle”)

The Tribunal records the claimant’s evidence that her:

• tone,

• body language,

• eye contact,

• word choice, and

• “literal language without padding”

could be interpreted as rude or offensive without meaning to.

The Tribunal frames it as a two-way problem

The Tribunal explicitly references the double empathy problem, describing how

misunderstandings can run in both directions, with autistic people and non-autistic people struggling to read each other’s intentions and forming negative impressions.

That is a big deal culturally. It rejects the lazy story that “the autistic person lacks empathy/skills, therefore fix them”. Instead, communication is a relationship, and relationships have at least two participants.

Concrete “communication-style” findings the Tribunal relied on

The Tribunal makes several findings:

• Not separable: it repeatedly says there was “no identifiable separate conduct” that

could be cleanly separated from communication style and its perception, including perception “as being aggressive”.

• Senior leader concession: the CEO (Professor Endersby) accepted in cross-examination that the claimant’s “personal style” could not be separated from her style “as an autistic person”.

• Misreading risk made explicit: “literal language without padding” plus associated non-verbal cues can be misinterpreted as hostility.

The Tribunal bolsters the “arising from disability” link using mainstream sources

The Tribunal records that it was asked to take judicial notice of information on the NHS and National Autistic Society websites, and no objection was made.

• NHS: common signs include seeming blunt or rude without meaning to, and finding

it hard to say how you feel.

• National Autistic Society: distressed behaviour may present as aggression, and the

double empathy problem is framed as a two-way difficulty.

A clean extractable definition (paraphrased, faithful to the reasons)

Autistic communication style here =

(1) direct or literal language (less “padding”),

(2) differences in tone, body language, eye contact, and word choice, plus

(3) higher risk of being perceived as rude or aggressive in cross-neurotype settings (double empathy), meaning “conduct” may not be separable from disability-linked communication.

How the Tribunal assessed the employer’s response

The employer argued it had legitimate aims, including staff wellbeing and acceptable behaviour.

The Tribunal accepted these aims were legitimate.

Then came the test that often decides s.15 cases: proportionality. The Tribunal found the

treatment complained of was disproportionate, including observations that it was not self-evident why one senior leader’s wellbeing should be prioritised over the claimant’s, and that communication differences were not properly taken into account.

The Tribunal explicitly says a more proportionate and less discriminatory approach would have been neutral, carefully planned, and coordinated, with an attempt to understand both parties’ experiences and provide support and constructive feedback, including a more considered approach to how communication differences might have affected what happened.

That is the core landing:

The organisation treated “communication impact” as misconduct, but the Tribunal saw disability-linked communication differences plus non-autistic perception, and found the employer’s response disproportionate.

What employers should do next (and what autistic staff can take from it)

For employers: stop outsourcing inclusion to “be nicer”

This judgment is a warning about a common managerial error: treating “professionalism” as a vibe check rather than a set of accessible behaviours and processes.

Practical implications, directly suggested by the Tribunal’s logic:

• Do not assume “tone” equals intent. Ask for clarification and be precise about

behaviours.

• Treat communication mismatch as a systems problem. The Tribunal’s reliance

on double empathy is a hint: build translation into your culture.

• Slow down before discipline. The Tribunal effectively sketches a better route:

neutral, planned, supported conversation, with constructive feedback and disability context.

• Document your justification properly. The Tribunal notes the absence of

documentation supporting parts of the justification argument, even while accepting strong feelings existed.

Also, a blunt observation: if senior leaders publicly frame disability-related distress as “a pretty minor disruption for most of us”, you may not be “managing change”. You may be manufacturing a discrimination risk.

For autistic people: ask for adjustments, because masking is not a legal requirement

The Tribunal’s approach backs a simple principle: your communication differences can be treated as disability-linked, including how others perceive them.

That is not a promise that every workplace will behave well. It is a reminder that you are not “too much” for requesting basic scaffolding.

Many autistic professionals who stay employed long-term do a form of “strategic unmasking”

because it reduces ambiguity and protects energy. It often looks like:

• “I use direct language and can sound blunt when I’m focused.”

• “If something lands badly, please ask what I meant before assuming hostility.”

• “Written agendas and written actions help me communicate accurately.”

This is not asking for special treatment. It is asking for shared accuracy, because misinterpretation costs everyone time.

Unmasking does not have to mean pouring your entire inner life into a Teams chat. It can mean telling the truth about what helps you communicate well, and naming the predictable misunderstanding points. The NHS itself describes autism in adults in ways that overlap with exactly what the Tribunal quoted, including seeming blunt or rude without meaning to and taking things literally.

Autistic network leads raised concerns about timing, quiet space, and adjustments, and the Tribunal treated those concerns as serious enough to support findings of harassment and discrimination when handled badly. Speaking up was not the problem. The response was. By Olena Baeva