Gregg Wallace, the longstanding host of Masterchef, has been banned from working at the BBC after reports of inappropriate behaviour and sexual harassment. In a letter of dismissal, the BBC told Wallace that he had made inappropriate jokes in the workplace and that executives did not “have the confidence that you can change what seems to be learned behaviour”.

This is not the first example of inappropriate behaviour by a BBC presenter being called-out following an investigation. What is notable in this case, however, is Wallace’s response. He has come out fighting. In an Instagram post last week, in advance of the publication of the external report into his behaviour, he referenced his recent Autism diagnosis, claimed that the BBC was aware that he was likely to be autistic, and that they created a working environment which was not ‘safe’ for him. He is, according to reports, teeing up a disability discrimination claim.

This case highlights a growing area of complexity for HR: when employee misconduct may be linked to a mental health condition or neurodivergence, such as autism or ADHD. As previous tribunal decisions show, while employers must tread carefully, poor behaviour isn’t always excused by disability.

Legal Framework

An impairment of autism can, if it meets the legal definition set out in s6 Equality Act 2010, be a disability. There are multiple case law examples of it being treated as such.

With autism, it is as important as it is with any other condition, to consider the effect on an individual employee on a case-by-case basis. It is likely, however, that many autistic workers will satisfy the definition of disability – having a physical or mental impairment which has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ effect on their ability to do normal daily activities.

Normal day-to-day activities can include social interaction and communication. The effect will be substantial if it is more than minor or trivial.

Meeting the legal definition gives autistic workers like Wallace important rights and protections at work. These include:

  • the right to reasonable adjustments;
  • the right to not be discriminated against;
  • the right not to be treated unfavourably for a reason related to their neurodivergence (unless such treatment can be objectively justified); and
  • the right not to be subject to harassment related to their neurodivergence.

Can employers still dismiss if misconduct is related to a disability?

Yes – but only if they can show that dismissal is a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate aim. Several recent cases show how this works in practice.

Duncan v Fujitsu Services Ltd
Mr Duncan, who had ADHD and autism, sent threatening and abusive messages to colleagues. Although he told Fujitsu that his behaviour was linked to his disabilities, he refused to provide medical evidence or participate in the disciplinary process. Fujitsu dismissed him for gross misconduct. The tribunal accepted his disabilities may have played a role but still found the dismissal fair and proportionate. The decision was upheld on appeal.

Forrester-Hayes v Scania (Great Britain) Ltd
Mr Forrester-Hayes, an apprentice with ADHD, threatened a colleague on Snapchat after a prank involving his lunch. His mother informed HR that ADHD contributed to impulsivity, and Scania arranged an occupational health review. The report found that his ADHD didn’t impair his understanding of right and wrong. The tribunal agreed. Although his condition played a role, it didn’t excuse the behaviour. A final warning wouldn’t have been enough to protect others, so dismissal was justified.

Muir v Astra Zeneca UK
By contrast, Astra Zeneca was found to have unfairly dismissed Dr Muir, a senior scientist with anxiety and depression. Informal complaints had been made about his tone and conduct under pressure, and the company dismissed him for gross misconduct. The tribunal found that Astra Zeneca failed to manage the situation properly. They didn’t speak to him informally, get occupational health input, or offer support. Given his long service and clean disciplinary record, dismissal was not a proportionate response.

Where does Gregg Wallace stand?

Wallace appears to be laying the groundwork for a claim based on two possible arguments:

  1. Failure to make reasonable adjustments
    In his Instagram post he suggests the BBC was aware of his potential autism since 2019 but failed to create a supportive environment. While he hasn’t specified what adjustments he needed, this could form the basis of a claim.
  2. Disability-related dismissal
    He may argue that his dismissal stemmed from behaviours linked to his autism and therefore amounts to discrimination arising from disability. The BBC would need to show that the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim – likely citing reputational risk, prior warnings, and Wallace’s failure to change. Unlike Dr Muir, Wallace appears to have already been warned and given training. If the BBC can show that support was offered and misconduct continued, they may have a stronger defence.

HR Learning Points

  1. Disability doesn’t mean immunity
    Employees with disabilities can still be held accountable – but only if disciplinary action is fair and proportionate.
  2. Investigate fairly
    Seek medical advice or occupational health input before making decisions. Don’t assume either that the condition had no impact or that it explains everything.
  3. Consider adjustments early
    Where disability is suspected, explore whether adjustments (e.g. communication coaching, mediation) could help prevent issues from escalating.
  4. Assess proportionality
    Is dismissal really the only way to protect staff or your reputation? Consider the employee’s history, intent, and any steps already taken.
  5. Document your reasoning
    If dismissal is necessary, ensure you clearly explain why lesser sanctions (e.g. warnings or role changes) would not be enough.