Shevlin v John Wiley & Sons: A Landmark Judgment on Harassment, Disability, and Performance Management

The recent Employment Tribunal ruling in Shevlin v John Wiley & Sons Ltd is a critical reminder of the fine line between firm performance management and unlawful workplace harassment.  

At the heart of the case was a question employers and employees alike increasingly wrestle with: when does critical feedback cross the line into discrimination? The Tribunal's decision provides clarity for HR professionals, line managers, and employees navigating the boundaries of lawful performance discussions - especially in workplaces becoming more aware of neurodiversity. 

The case centred on Thomas Shevlin, who began working at academic publishing house John Wiley & Sons in May 2022 as a senior HR operations manager. During his employment, concerns were raised by his line manager, Rebecca Roycroft, about the quality of his work - specifically in relation to spelling, grammar, and formatting errors in emails and reports.  

These concerns were reflected in his end-of-year review, delivered in March 2023 and finalised in early April. The claimant, who was later diagnosed with ADHD and had self-identified as having dyslexia, claimed that the feedback amounted to disability-related harassment. 

However, the London Employment Tribunal decisively dismissed the claim. In a judgment issued on 11 June 2025, Employment Judge Massarella ruled that Roycroft’s comments were legitimate, reasonable, and professionally delivered.  

They were not humiliating or degrading, but rather part of an ordinary and essential process of workplace performance management. In doing so, the Tribunal drew a clear distinction between constructive criticism and the kind of unwanted conduct that the law defines as harassment. 

A Careful Balance: What the Tribunal Actually Said 

The Equality Act 2010 sets a high bar for what constitutes harassment. Conduct must be unwanted, related to a protected characteristic (such as disability), and must have the purpose or effect of violating the individual’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.  

Shevlin argued that references to his “messy” work and repeated mention of typographical issues constituted such a violation. 

But the Tribunal disagreed. Judge Massarella found that Roycroft’s feedback was “expressed in neutral and non-judgmental terms” and was part of her duty as a manager. The purpose was clearly to encourage improvement, not to undermine.  

Importantly, Shevlin had not disclosed his ADHD or dyslexia during the period in which the feedback was given. He only began raising concerns about his neurodivergence in May 2023, after the review had already taken place and shortly before initiating internal grievances. 

This lack of disclosure was significant. The law does not impose a duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments for conditions they neither know nor could reasonably be expected to know about.  

Although Shevlin later provided a psychological report in October 2023 confirming an ADHD diagnosis, the Tribunal found no evidence that the condition was known or suspected by Wiley at the relevant time. Nor was there compelling evidence that ADHD was the cause of the typographical and grammatical errors highlighted in the review. 

This judgment places renewed emphasis on disclosure. Employees who wish to rely on legal protections under the Equality Act 2010 must be proactive in informing their employers about any disabilities or impairments that might affect their performance.  

Where no disclosure is made, and there is no reason to suspect a disability, employers will not be held liable for failing to make adjustments or for indirect discrimination related to that disability. 

Performance Management vs Harassment: Drawing the Line 

The case also raises important questions for employers about how to manage underperformance without risking claims of harassment. The Tribunal’s ruling makes clear that not every negative remark, even one that touches on aspects of a person’s disability, amounts to unlawful behaviour. What matters is the intention, tone, and context of the feedback. 

Roycroft’s remarks, far from being insulting, were carefully worded and directly tied to the quality of work. She did not make personal comments about Shevlin’s intelligence or character. Instead, she pointed to observable shortcomings - formatting errors, unclear sentence structures, and inconsistent email presentation - that would reasonably concern any employer. 

Roy Magara, solicitor and founder of Magara Law, notes: 

“This Employment Tribunal ruling offers a crucial reminder about the balance between effective performance management and claims of workplace harassment or discrimination.  

The Tribunal correctly confirmed that highlighting legitimate performance weaknesses, such as disorganised work or typographical errors, is an essential management function. This case emphasises that valid criticism, when delivered professionally and focused on performance, is not unlawful discrimination.” 

The judgment provides reassurance for employers that they can, and should, continue to deliver honest, constructive feedback - particularly where it relates to the quality of work, attention to detail, or communication standards. Such feedback, when respectful and grounded in fact, will not automatically trigger liability under the Equality Act 2010. 

Lessons for Employers and HR Teams 

This case reaffirms several best practices for employers: 

First, it is vital to maintain a professional tone when delivering feedback. Documenting performance concerns in neutral, non-judgmental language is not only good management, it is also good legal protection. Roycroft’s written review played a key role in demonstrating that the comments were reasonable and not personal. 

Second, employers should create a workplace culture where employees feel safe to disclose any conditions affecting their performance. This requires more than just policies on paper, it involves training, open dialogue, and regular review of how feedback is given and received.  

Where a condition like ADHD or dyslexia is disclosed, the employer must then consider whether any reasonable adjustments are required to support the employee. 

Third, HR and legal teams should understand that intent matters, but so does perception. While the purpose of feedback may be constructive, it should always be delivered in a way that avoids personal insinuations or emotional undertones that could be misconstrued. 

Lessons for Employees Navigating Neurodiversity at Work 

For employees, this case is a call to action on proactive disclosure. Legal protection under the Equality Act 2010 hinges on whether the employer has actual or constructive knowledge of the disability. An undisclosed condition, however genuine, cannot form the basis of a successful harassment or discrimination claim if the employer is unaware of it. 

Employees with hidden disabilities such as ADHD, autism, or dyslexia should consider sharing relevant information early, preferably in writing and with support from medical professionals. Disclosure is not always easy, but it allows both sides to engage in meaningful dialogue about adjustments and expectations. 

At the same time, employees should understand that feedback, even when uncomfortable, is a necessary part of employment. Being told that work is messy or contains errors, in and of itself, is not an attack on dignity. Only when feedback crosses into personal insult, humiliation, or aggressive tone does it risk becoming harassment. 

Why This Case Matters 

Shevlin v John Wiley & Sons is likely to be cited in future disputes involving performance reviews and claims of harassment linked to undiagnosed or undisclosed disabilities.  

It illustrates that the law continues to protect both sides: it upholds the rights of disabled employees while affirming the legitimate role of employers in holding staff to reasonable standards. 

For employers, it’s a reminder to keep communication clear, respectful, and evidence-based. For employees, it is a prompt to be transparent about health conditions and to participate constructively in feedback processes. For everyone, it reinforces the principle that fair, constructive performance management is not only lawful, it’s necessary for growth. 

How Magara Law Can Support You 

At Magara Law, we work with both employers and employees to get these sensitive situations right. Whether you’re drafting performance policies, navigating a grievance, or dealing with claims of discrimination, our team provides tailored, strategic advice grounded in real-world employment law. 

We help employers build cultures of clarity and compliance, ensuring performance management is both fair and effective. Plus, we stand by employees who feel their voices haven’t been heard, advocating with compassion and precision.

If you’re unsure whether your workplace is getting this balance right, don’t wait for it to become a legal issue. Speak to Magara Law today. Book your consultation and an Employment Solicitor will be in touch.