The question of how far employers must go to accommodate the individual needs of neurodivergent candidates in recruitment processes was considered in a recent Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) decision. The case involved an appeal against a promotion decision where the unsuccessful candidate argued that the interview process created systemic barriers for neurodivergent applicants and that this was a form of indirect discrimination.

Factual background

The employee applied for a senior role within a public health service but was unsuccessful. She argued that the process was unfair because the interview format—verbal, multi-part questions without written prompts—disadvantaged neurodivergent candidates. She also claimed the panel’s behaviour was intimidating and lacked two-way communication, and that this compounded her disadvantage. Specifically, the employee claimed that neurodivergent individuals often interpret questions literally and may require extra clarifications to ensure they understand what is being asked. In her view, the rigid question-and-answer format, combined with the expectation to “pick up on cues”, created a systemic barrier. She contended that the process assessed her ability to “sell herself” rather than her capacity to perform the role, despite her extensive experience.

The employer asserted that the recruitment process complied with the relevant directive and policy. Importantly, the role description explicitly invited candidates to request support or adjustments during the process. The employee did not disclose her neurodivergence or request any accommodations until after the process was complete.

Findings

The QIRC acknowledged that universal design principles can improve inclusivity in recruitment but confirmed that employers are not required to redesign recruitment processes to anticipate the possible needs of every single candidate. The QIRC noted that neurodivergence manifests differently for each individual, making it impractical for panels to predict specific requirements. Instead, the process must provide a mechanism for candidates to request adjustments—and in this case, it did.

The QIRC found no procedural deficiency in the employer’s hiring process as they had followed a standard merit-based process which applied equally to candidates. It noted that while systemic change may be desirable, fairness in an individual case depends on whether the employer provided an opportunity for candidates to identify their needs and whether reasonable adjustments were made when requested.

Ultimately, the QIRC found that the responsibility to request reasonable adjustments rests with the candidate. While processes should enable disclosure of the need for adjustments and employers should respond appropriately, the universal redesign of recruitment processes to accommodate neurodivergence is not required.

Further, the QIRC addressed the employee’s argument about the lack of “two-way communication” and clarified that interviews are designed to draw out information from candidates, not to engage in back-and-forth dialogue like a conversation.

Why this matters for employers

This decision reinforces that employers should focus on creating fair processes that allow candidates to request support. Role descriptions should clearly invite applicants to identify adjustments, and employers must respond reasonably when requests are made. Employers should also ensure panels are trained in diversity awareness and understand how to respond to adjustment requests.