Expulsion due to ADHD was unwarranted. The Supreme Court held in its judgment of 13 June 2013. The case concerned a paralegal who was expelled from a fixed-term contract after four days of work on the grounds that she had failed to inform the employer that she was suffering from ADHD that her special needs would place too great a burden on her colleagues and the Office clients demanded great spontaneity, flexibility and tolerance. matter has previously been treated by the Maritime and Commercial Court, as we have previously mentioned in our newsletter in October 2011. Supreme Court held, first, that attorney Secretary had met any disclosure under Health Information Act by related to the recruitment interview to disclose his ADHD disorder for the other two legal secretaries, who also participated in the interview.

It was therefore unjustified to dismiss her on the grounds that she had not fulfilled its obligation, and she was consequently entitled to compensation for wages and holiday pay during the notice period. Supreme Court ruled then that lawyer secretary suffered from ADHD to such an extent that she was covered by the concept of disability in discrimination law and the underlying EU directive.

When she was expelled with regard to its ADHD disorder, there was direct discrimination by discrimination Act § 2. 1 pursuant to § 1 paragraph. 2 Lawyer Secretary was then awarded compensation on the basis of the guidelines that have evolved in practice by dismissal in breach of the Equal Treatment Law § 9, was set to 6 months' salary. verdict shows that ADHD may involve such impairment, the disorder is a disability discrimination in the legal sense. The judgment is thus a direct extension of the ECJ judgment of 11 April 2013 in which the Supreme Court also refers.

The judgment also shows that the level of compensation for discrimination law should be the same as the Equal Treatment Act, ie. 6 months at very short length, 9 months as a rule, and 12 months in particularly aggravating circumstances.