Former Lidl Deputy Manager Awarded £45,147 After Tribunal Rules Dismissal Unfair
A former Lidl employee diagnosed with ADHD and a related fear of rejection has successfully sued the supermarket giant for unfair dismissal, securing a substantial compensation payout of £45,147. Ryan Toghill, who worked as a deputy store manager, was fired for gross misconduct after being caught operating a powered pallet truck against explicit instructions from his manager.
The Case Details and Disciplinary Proceedings
Mr Toghill began his employment at Lidl in Newport, Monmouthshire, in October 2019 as a shift manager before being promoted to deputy store manager in June 2022. He received an ADHD diagnosis in May 2022, a condition that the employment tribunal later noted causes him to experience "rejection sensitivity" – an intense sensitivity to perceived rejection, harassment, or criticism.
In July 2023, Mr Toghill was diagnosed with a hernia and was transferred to Lidl's store in Ystrad Mynach, south Wales. The store manager, Ms Ogden, recalled him asking early on whether he could use powered pallet trucks (PPTs), heavy equipment weighing around a ton, and she explicitly told him he must not. Mr Toghill later informed her about his hernia diagnosis, stating it made manually pulling pallets more difficult. While Ms Ogden offered to adjust his working habits, Mr Toghill declined, instead expressing his intention to seek permission for PPT use.
Over subsequent days, multiple staff members reported to management that Mr Toghill had been secretly using the machinery on the shop floor, allegedly waiting for certain team members to leave before doing so. This prompted an investigation and a disciplinary meeting in August 2023, which found Mr Toghill had disregarded managerial authority and failed to show remorse for his actions. Lidl claimed he had gone against instructions, withheld information during the hearing, and engaged in "deliberate deception."
Tribunal Findings on Disability and Substantial Disadvantage
After an unsuccessful appeal, Mr Toghill was offered a demoted role as a shift manager, which he rejected as discriminatory. He then took his case to the employment tribunal in Cardiff. In a judgment published recently, Employment Judge Samantha Moore ruled that Lidl had failed to make reasonable adjustments for Mr Toghill's disability during the disciplinary process.
Judge Moore stated that while Lidl was "perfectly entitled" to classify unauthorized PPT use as gross misconduct, given the serious safety implications, the company did not fully appreciate the impact of Mr Toghill's ADHD. The judge noted that his condition causes "ADHD paralysis" – an inability to initiate, complete, or sustain tasks due to overwhelming anxiety, stress, or mental fatigue – and leads to communication difficulties, such as needing extra time to process questions or appearing not to listen.
Critically, the tribunal found that Mr Toghill's ADHD put him at a "substantial disadvantage" during the disciplinary hearing and the subsequent dismissal sanction, though not during the investigation or appeal stages. His perceived "lack of remorse" was ruled to be a misinterpretation stemming from his rejection sensitivity, a symptom of his disability that made him seem indifferent even if he was not. Other complaints of unfavourable treatment and direct disability discrimination were unsuccessful.
Compensation and Personal Impact
The tribunal ordered Lidl to pay £45,147 in compensation to Mr Toghill. In comments to the Daily Mail, Mr Toghill expressed mixed feelings about the outcome, describing it as "content" rather than happy. He noted that the compensation does not cover the financial losses he has incurred, as he remains out of work, and his health has "dramatically declined" since the incident.
Mr Toghill also highlighted the 18-month backlog in the tribunal system, suggesting it reflects how frequently such cases occur. On a positive note, he shared that his hyper-focus on the case, a trait linked to his ADHD, has led him to gain extensive knowledge of employment law. He is now using this expertise to help others in similar situations, with people reaching out to him on platforms like Reddit for advice. While he might consider a career in this field in an ideal world, he emphasized that his health must currently take priority.
This case underscores the legal obligations employers have under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments for employees with disabilities, including neurodiverse conditions like ADHD. It serves as a reminder that disciplinary processes must account for how disabilities can affect behaviour and communication, to avoid unfair outcomes and substantial compensation claims.
