Lidl Worker Unfairly Dismissed Over Pallet-Truck Breach, Tribunal Rules

A Lidl deputy store manager was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed after the supermarket failed to follow a fair disciplinary process and did not properly consider the impact of his ADHD during proceedings, an employment tribunal has ruled.

The tribunal found that although the worker had breached company rules by using a powered pallet truck (PPT) without authorisation, Lidl’s handling of the case fell outside the range of reasonable responses open to an employer. It also upheld a claim of disability discrimination arising from the dismissal.

Background to the Case

The claimant, who had worked for Lidl since 2019 and had been diagnosed with ADHD in 2022, was dismissed after being seen using a PPT on the shop floor without the required training or approval. He accepted he had used the equipment but argued he had misunderstood instructions from his manager and that unauthorised use of PPTs was common practice in other stores.

Lidl relied on the rule that only authorised and trained staff may operate the machinery, describing the equipment as heavy and potentially dangerous. But the tribunal noted that sanctions had not been applied consistently: in earlier cases involving store managers, Lidl had issued final written warnings rather than dismissal, and area managers who had condoned unauthorised use had received only informal reprimands.

Procedural Failings and Equality Act Considerations

The tribunal found multiple procedural failings. The dismissal was partly based on “breach of trust”, yet this allegation was not set out in the disciplinary invitation, contrary to Lidl’s own policy requiring allegations to be clearly specified. The initial investigation was also carried out by the manager involved in disputed conversations with the claimant, creating further procedural unfairness.

The tribunal held that Lidl failed to adequately accommodate the claimant’s ADHD during the disciplinary hearing. His difficulties with communication, processing information and recalling conversations were not taken into account, even though Lidl was aware of his condition. References in the dismissal letter to “lack of remorse” and inability to recall details were, the tribunal found, directly linked to his disability.

Employers should note that under the Equality Act 2010, reasonable adjustments must be made for employees with disabilities, including neurodiverse conditions such as ADHD. Failure to do so can lead to claims of discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Neurodiversity, ADHD and Disability Rights in the Workplace

This case highlights the importance of understanding neurodiversity and making appropriate adjustments during disciplinary processes. For practical guidance on supporting neurodiverse employees and complying with legal obligations, see our article: Neurodiversity and Disability in the Workplace: HR and Legal Guide.

Outcome and Next Steps

While Lidl later acknowledged some of these issues at appeal and offered redeployment to a lower role, the tribunal ruled that the original dismissal remained unfair and that the appeal did not cure the defects.

Claims of indirect discrimination and several historic complaints were dismissed. A separate hearing will determine compensation.

Case Details

Case: Mr R Toghill v Lidl Great Britain Ltd
Tribunal: Employment Tribunal, Cardiff
Judges: Employment Judge S Moore, Mrs A Fine, Mrs M Humphries
Case No.: 1602900/2023
Date of judgment: 25 October 2024 (reasons sent 27 October 2025)

Need Employment Law Advice?

If you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of employment law, contact our employment law team today.

About the Author