To feel like some reasonable adjustments are actually unreasonable

[Tiredjusttired]

Fully prepared to get flamed here, but please hear me out.

The small team I work in has an increasingly large proportion of people receiving workplace adjustments for disabilities such as ADHD, stomach issues, MS, depression, heart problems. The adjustments typically involve less workload, more time to complete tasks, less responsibility, less travel, priority for desk based tasks (while being paid the same as those with full responsibility and workload obligations).

My problem is that it means there is no capacity for the rest of us to catch a breath, undertake shadowing for professional development, or do general CPD, since the overall team workload has remained the same. I keep telling myself it is right my employer makes these adjustments, but it just feels so unfair. I’ve had to work so much of today to keep up with the workload. The ones without reasonable adjustments have to pick up the slack.

Does anyone else feel similarly? I guess I can take comfort in the fact my employer will hear me out when or if I have health issues myself, although the policy for menopause/pregnancy is very frugal. Currently, it seems a bit two-tier .

People with disabilities had breakdowns and were never well enough to work again.

That’s a much better solution.

I get why it might feel like a big ask, especially with NHS budgets being tight. But yes, if travel is an essential part of the role and someone can't do it safely due to a disability, then paying for taxis or alternative transport can absolutely be a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act. It’s not about whether it feels like a good use of money it’s a legal obligation to remove barriers so that disabled staff can do their jobs.
Reasonable adjustments aren’t optional, and sometimes they do cost money that’s just part of the cost of being an employer. It’s no different from spending on equipment, uniforms, or training. If the adjustment allows the person to keep doing the core parts of their job, then the employer (in this case the NHS) is expected to cover it, as long as it’s not disproportionately expensive relative to the organisation's size and resources and the NHS clearly has far more resources than most employers.
Also, Access to Work can sometimes help cover travel costs like taxis, especially for public sector workers. So the NHS might not even have to pay the full cost in every case, but they do have to make sure the adjustment happens.
At the end of the day, it's about keeping skilled people in work, and that benefits patients too.

Comments like this are exactly why the Equality Act exists. The idea that society was better off when disabled people were pushed to the point of breakdown or simply disappeared from the workforce isn't just heartless it's wrong. We’ve moved on from a time when people were expected to suffer in silence or be discarded when they couldn’t meet rigid standards. That wasn’t strength it was neglect.
Yes, adjustments can shift workloads around, but that’s not a failure of disabled people it’s a sign that employers need to manage their teams properly. Reasonable adjustments aren’t about special treatment; they’re about fairness and legal obligation. And if supporting disabled people to stay in work means others have to work a little differently too, that’s part of what a fair and decent society looks like.
Mocking people for needing support says a lot more about your attitude than it does about theirs.

Oh good another thread bashing those with disabilities. Lovely.

don't worry I defended everyone with a disability the best I could!

Surely the reasonable adjustments are to allow the person to do the job? If the adjustment is to not to do parts of the job is that still reasonable?

How did you resolve it?

We didn't. We've lost several good staff now because they were having to soak up extra work that person wasn't doing. I'm also looking to leave.

if supporting disabled people to stay in work means others have to work a little differently too

I'm fine with working different. Not fine with doing 120% of a job to cover for someone else to do 80% of theirs for the same pay.

People need to start accepting that one answer is to work part time at a level you can cope with. Benefit top ups would help this be manageable financially

I think for the most part, this has been the most reasonable and reflective thread I’ve ever read on mumsnet.

I think we can all agree that it’s important that employers make adjustments. Perhaps the real issue is not so much workload, but the nature of reasonable adjustments. To me, and I do feel a bit guilty thinking this, it’s like the reasonable adjustments are about removing the worst, most aggy bits of the job, the bits people generally don’t like but tend to put up with because it’s par for the course.

Possibly an interesting question testing this would be: a lorry driver, diagnosed with anxiety and depression, says that driving now makes him more depressed and anxious. Would the employer be obliged to give him a desk job instead? What if there were no desk based jobs available? What if other lorry drivers given the extra driving workload start to feel tired and stressed, which then affected their driving skills?

One could argue that is exactly the sort of thing PIP is for, to help bridge the gap where part time working is required?

legally adjustments can remove parts of the job (in effect meaning they get assigned to someone else) this is perfectly elgal and has been upheld in law many times.

That would generally be seen as redeployment, rather than a reasonable adjustment.

A reasonable adjustment might be only certain routes, or trip durations, and any pay adjustments or increase in other duties needed to balance that out.

Sounds like your employer has fallen into the tunnel vision world of only focussing on the task removal rather than how to adjust. Adjustments can (and often should) mean more of one type of thing and less of another. Not just less, unless that less is via part time working.

One could argue that is exactly the sort of thing PIP is for, to help bridge the gap where part time working is required.

Indeed - except the vast majority who receive it are not in work.

yeh but the law allows for this, you may it like it but legally removing some of their work load is an adjustment in some scenarios. Your manager could have hired a part time staff to reduce workload or retributed it more evenly though.

legally adjustments can remove parts of the job (in effect meaning they get assigned to someone else) this is perfectly legal and has been upheld in law many times

Quite - but one could hazard a guess that the intention is for different work to be substituted such that the employee was still as occupied as their colleagues, not for some people to simply do less for the same pay. It is the latter that many of us struggle with.

What happens when all the people doing all the work refuse?

Surely though the employers could then find a reason to get rid of them in the first 2 years. If I was an employer I'd certainly be very pissed off if someone hadn't disclosed something that affected their working Trust would then be gone in that person

Your manager could have hired a part time staff to reduce workload

What happens when all the employers go bust? Many companies are making wafer thin profits already. My employer made a loss last year. They literally can't afford this.

you’re right that redeployment is often part of the conversation, but it’s also important to know that offering someone a different job, even a higher-paid or desk-based one, can be a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act, especially when they can no longer do their original role due to a disability.
One key case that confirms this is Archibald v Fife Council. A road sweeper developed a condition that meant she could no longer do her physical duties. Instead of being redeployed into an admin role, she was made to go through a competitive interview process and ultimately lost the job. The House of Lords ruled that the council should have offered her the desk job as a reasonable adjustment, even without a competitive process. It made clear that adjustments can go as far as giving someone a different role outright if it helps remove the disadvantage caused by their condition.
So yes, giving someone a desk job without an interview, if no other options are viable, can absolutely be lawful. It’s not about getting an easier ride, it’s about preventing exclusion from work entirely.

I have found this with student nurses with anxiety. They have action plans stating they need a quiet space to have time out of they are overwhelmed. Err we have a job that has to be done. If your anxiety is that bad then you are in the wrong job. I have MS and have never requested any adjustments.

I appreciate the reasoned arguments of @coffeeandmycats .

However, I do wonder about workplaces which are faced with multiple people requiring adjustments. Especially if they are small businesses.

And it’s easier to be accommodating to people with physical disabilities. But trying to keep my own blood pressure from rising with the person who couldn’t come into the office (commuting phobia - only commuting mind you) - so wfh allowed and then who wouldn’t speak on the phone (anxiety) - so allowed to email only - and then said couldn’t answer emails promptly as stressful - aaaaagggh!!

Actually, employers taking action like that after someone discloses a disability can land themselves in serious legal trouble. If they try to get rid of someone within the first two years just because they've requested reasonable adjustments, that can still count as disability discrimination, which is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010.
Even though employees don't have full unfair dismissal protection until two years of service, discrimination claims don't have that time limit they can be brought from day one. So if an employer sacks someone or starts treating them less favourably after a disclosure, they’re opening themselves up to a potentially very costly tribunal pay out.
Also, there's no legal requirement to disclose a disability at the application or interview stage, even if asked. That information is personal, and the law protects someone’s right to keep it private until they’re ready to share it usually when they actually need adjustments in place.
So no, it’s not dishonest or untrustworthy to wait until day one to disclose. It’s self-protection, and it’s legally allowed. If trust is broken, it’s usually on the employer's side when they don’t handle disclosures properly.

I really appreciate the way you’ve raised this it’s a genuine challenge, especially for smaller workplaces trying to stay afloat while also doing the right thing. It can absolutely feel overwhelming when multiple people need adjustments, especially when those adjustments involve things like communication or availability that affect the flow of work.
That said, even when the adjustments seem frustrating or hard to understand from the outside, they’re usually based on medical advice or lived experience. Mental health and neurodivergent conditions can make very routine things commuting, phone calls, even replying to emails quickly genuinely distressing or overwhelming. What seems like someone being awkward or avoidant might actually be them trying really hard just to stay employed.
Of course, there’s a balance to be struck, and employers aren’t expected to absorb unlimited strain. What’s “reasonable” is judged based on the size and resources of the business. A small five-person company isn’t expected to offer the same level of flexibility or cover as somewhere like Tesco, where there are more staff and more money to move things around. The law takes that into account so small businesses aren’t held to the same standard, and that's fair.
It’s also okay for employers to explore what’s sustainable, and adjustments should be reviewed regularly, not left open-ended without support or boundaries. It’s a tricky line, but the goal isn’t perfection it’s inclusion, as far as is reasonable. And I completely get how that can feel hard to manage in real life.

It’s completely valid to feel the pressure when you're in a demanding job like nursing. But it’s important to remember that the legal right to reasonable adjustments exists specifically to make sure people with disabilities, including mental health conditions like anxiety, aren’t excluded from professions they’re otherwise capable of doing.
Having a quiet space to step away for a few minutes isn’t about avoiding the job it’s about managing symptoms so someone can keep going and stay safe, for themselves and for patients. It’s not that different from someone with MS needing to rest if they're fatigued or managing symptoms quietly. Just because you haven’t asked for adjustments doesn’t mean others shouldn’t. Everyone's condition affects them differently, and the law doesn’t require people to suffer in silence to prove they belong in their role.
We don’t say someone with asthma shouldn’t be a teacher because they might need to use an inhaler. It’s about managing the condition in a way that makes the job sustainable, and that’s exactly what these action plans are meant to support.

That's just ridiculous though surely.

At what point do you conclude that they are just not capable of doing the job to the required level?

I'm not sure why you think this? If removing flexible working for the mother means you're now indirectly discriminating against women - which it might - then this is the same in law as disability discrimination. The protected characteristics aren't ranked - disability doesn't trump sex discrimination.