To feel like some reasonable adjustments are actually unreasonable

I think part of the ruling was because she worked for a large company

Large companies are in practise expected to make more adjustments then smaller companies. Eg a small sandwich shop may have won their claim but s large retailer may not have.

I linked the above example as an example showing how far adjustments should be going. Personally I am glad the woman won her case, and I would encourage anyone with a disability to do the same TAKE YOUR EMPLOYER to an employment tribunal, it is free and if you win you get money for the miss treatment. I hate the miss treatment of disabled people.

I'm talking about a small firm of commercial gas engineers, a public facing hospitality role and teaching in schools and colleges.

So she had been back at work for a year on reduced hours (which is good), and in addition to not being able to carry out on call duties could also not do any of the lifting which is a key element of the job. Its no wonder businesses are running away from the UK, is it? Of course employers should be flexible, but having someone off work for a year even in understandable circumstances to then return on a staggered return (reasonable) but not being able to carry out fundamentals of the role a year on and with no insight into when they could resume these duties doesnt scream unreasonable. Sadly lots of people have to reassess their careers after illness or injury.

Well done on your son for working!

I think there is a fine line between reasonable and not but as a small business owner myself I would absolutely err on the side of caution and grant an adjustment if I wasn't sure. It's the morally right thing to do

I think whether these or reasonable or not comes down to the job itself but in principle I have seen these given to people before

I still think it boils down to companies are scared to go to court and lose
Read the below example and employee couldn't do large parts of their job after getting cancer sued and won 60k. Good on her

Employees need to be much more flexible with work this is 2025 and people with disabilities who are denied adjustments should all go to an employment tribunal and woop their employers in court

https://www.thehrdirector.com/legal-updates/legal-updates-2024/aberdeen-funeral-director-wins-60000-compensation-unfair-dismissal/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Hours of work that don't fit with the business opening hours or where a job requires two people to travel together/arrive on site at a certain time to fit with the client.
Only wanting to work at certain locations when those locations are limited and the most popular.
Extensive paid rest breaks that impact on colleagues or unpaid breaks that impact on collegues especially when working in a pair.
Alterations to the building that are disproportionately expensive compared to the size of business or in a listed building.
Taking on a high pressure role with time critical deadlines or where emergency situations arise when not capable of that.

Reasonable is quite subjective so its tricky. Sometimes jobs just arent suitable for some people, my DB has ADHD and suffered a lot of complex MH problems growing up- he was sectioned a lot as a child but still managed to recognise when the career he had dreamt of doing wasn't actually for him. He works in a manual job now and although, like many people, he doesnt love his job it works better for him. Lots of people arent keen to recognise this and would rather push to change fundamentals of the job, lots of employers are worried about come back so would rather grant them than face long union battles or the like.

It is a shame for people who genuinely need them.

What kind of adjustments are not reasonable to.you out of interest?

I guess it's a difficult one here..

Arguably the NHS should be covering taxis for them in this case. But also if she has to drive less but can still drive somewhat I can see how a judge would find this reasonable

Plus if they fired her she is out of a job which is never nice.

It's a difficult one isn't it.

I think the main issue here though is the NHS should be covering taxis instead of re distributing the workload

Three members of my household need reasonable adjustments. One of them has a vestibular condition so the adjustments re to do with lighting etc, the others are ND.

Dh was unable to drive for 3 years (literally not allowed by the DVLA). His adjustment was slightly different working hours to accommodate public transport times. If he had been in his previous job which involved travelling to 2-3 different schools in one day he wold simply not be able to do that job. He turned down a fantastic opportunity because he could not drive.

Adjustments only have to be reasonable. There seems to be many people demanding adjustments that are totally unreasonable for the situation. employers can't take this.

I work for myself and have no employees, but to me, this sounds like a time vs resource problem.
Those that genuinely need adjustments (a good example is my husband, who has scoliosis and sometimes he requires 15-20 mins to just get up from his computer and stretch his back) should get them, because they are just that - adjustments to help the person continue functioning and accessing the world in the same way as NT people do.
However, the amount of burnout you are suggesting is happening implies that either people are piss taking (“I have IBS so I need a 40 min bathroom break” when actually they need to adjust their diet for example) or there are simply too many people with adjustments working and sometimes that is the case!
Your employer has to manage what is “reasonable” with what is actually sensible for the company and possibly have a recruitment drive, start ensuring adjustments don’t impact on others and compensating those that are working more properly.

I can drive - that's how I do my job.

What I am saying is, being able to drive is listed as an "essential requirement" at interview - the spec states that you cannot do this role unless you can drive and own a car.

She is now having to drive less due to her health yet still "doing" the role, whereas someone new who interviewed for it would be told the lack of driving would be an issue

Hi, I feel your pain.

To clarify though is you not being able tod.rive down to a disability or just because you never learned.

If it is because you never learned than legally yes the employer can do this, however if you also have a disability you should let them know.

The courts have often removed removing driving from a job is a reasonable adjustment. however arguably the employer could cover taxi costs for this person if need be depending on the job.

Sorry you are going through this but it is legal although frustrating

I did some digging and also found the below.

There is case law confirming that if someone cannot continue in their current role due to a disability, moving them into a higher paid role can be considered a reasonable adjustment. The courts have upheld that in some situations, employers may need to offer a more senior or better paid position without a competitive process if it helps remove the disadvantage caused by the disability. This principle was confirmed in the case of Archibald v Fife Council.

People on this thread saying people with a disability shouldn't get so many adjustments need to be careful as they may find the disabled person becomes their boss if they keep bashing them.

I work in community NHS, if I turned up at the interview and said I couldn't drive then I would be ruled out of the job. My colleague is back from sick leave having her driving expectations "adjusted" which basically means the rest of us will have to do more driving to cover her.

I don't wish unemployment on anyone but I don't agree that you can "reasonably" adjust a job that requires driving by cutting driving.... It's not fair on everyone else as it's a direct negative impact on everyone else

I agree with this, I think the issue is there is no way to decide whether a judge would find something reasonable or not and employers are scared to say something isn't reasonable incase they go to an employment tribunal so sometimes unreasonable adjustments go through. It's a hard line

In principal I agree but when you look at employment tribunal case studies it does appear removing part of the job is a reasonable adjustment meaning someone has to pick it up.

In your example I agree reducing the case load from 1000 to 500 isn't reasonable but altering it from 1000 to maybe 800 with some filler tasks in could be reasonable etc. I suppose it depends on a. Case by case basis

This

The OP may have no choice but to accept it

Most job contracts have a clause about carrying out extra work for needs of the business etc. And without two years service you can be sacked for reasons that aren't related to a protected characteristic meaning if OP refuses they could be dismissed.

According to acas Reasonable adjustments can be to remove or alter small bits of the job though. Eg if someone's job is to fix 5 software bugs a day and after each bug call the user and tell them its resolved and they have autism the adjustment could remove the need for them to call the client (meaning someone else would presumably have to)

Cases where companies haven't made adjustments above have gone to employment tribunals and the employee has won and the employer has been found guilty of disability discrimination.

But the question still stands, if a company removes part of the workload from someone who do they give it to? Because they aren't going to hire another person just to make those calls meaning it would fall down to one other member of the team realistically. If the employee refuses to make the calls then the company may go down the dismissal route and if the employee hasn't been there for two years can be sacked for this reason (although the increased workload isn't fair it's not illegal)

I feel like this is how we get in these situations, bad employers shorting on staff making disabled people take the hit.

It sounds like your employer isn’t actually considering and implementing these adjustments in a reasonable manner.

It might be time for a calm, but pointed discussion on how to make things sustainable with these adjustments in place. It sounds like they’ve taken the muddle through while someone is ill approach to adjustments but done it for permanent issues. Eg. Adjust base salaries and add a travel allowance, which can correctly only be paid to those who travel. Reasonable adjustments very explicitly dont mean being paid for something you’re not doing.

I wouldn't be tolerating that.
You need to spell out to your employer that moving the workload of others on to you is not acceptable or sustainable, that you are feeling unduly burdened and stressed.
If they want to reduce the work load of others, they add a new hire, not dump it on you.

Look at your job description and stop accepting extra tasks.

Plenty of people get reasonable adjustments at my work for all sorts of things. Some official and some unofficial. Basically, if you do your job well, you can do it in a way that suits you. Everyone works in different ways and at different paces regardless of disability. I work at a fast pace and don’t mind taking on some other people’s work load, so long as they don’t mind if I nip out to do my shopping or leave early sometimes. My advice is don’t be a martyr and try and find a way that works for you.