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 .

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

Some may be reasonable some may not.

I am always an advocate for people with ADHD or autism not disclosing their condition until day one of their job and then asking for the adjustments. This prevents unlawful bias during the hiring process and once they have the job they can lay down what they need as a reasonable adjustment

Employers should be a lot more flexible and should understand that if people need adjustments they should be trying to make them and find solutions.

I'm sorry to the people who don't have disabilities who think that adjustment's aren't reasonable but time and time in court the disabled people win as they should!

Also schools as a public organisation have a duty to provide a greater level of support than private organisations I believe

I think this is the thing isn't it. I work in a large org where lots of people have adjustments and it works fine. But I have also had to manage individuals who are neurodivergent and/or have depression and anxiety and I think that ultimately sometimes people need to be realistic about the sort of job they can do. My team works in a fast paced environment with lots going on and lots of interaction with others. I have had situations where people cannot manage their own workload, need constant handholding and reassurance, go AWOL during the working day, panic at having to interact with others, leaving me to pick up so much of their workload. In one of these situations the person eventually acknowledged that they could not cope with a role like the one they were in and needed something part time, entirely home based, zero pressure, 'gentle' pace, etc.

OP can't say that she's struggling with workload because she'd be the first one out of the door

IME a lot depends on how this is framed, and instead of making it about their own capacity to cope an employee can simply ask what the management wish to be prioritised

Probably they'll reply "Well, all of it", and that's the time to point out the burden that's been added and that something will need to give, thus putting it straight back onto management where it belongs

yeh I feel like those situations can be difficult to manage. Instead of dismissing the employee though legally you should be looking for an alternative job in the company they can do, maybe a higher paid position that has less client facing activity or something that more meets their needs. But I know each situation is difficult.

maybe they should sit down with their manager show them their work schedule and how long each task will take to finish and then say how can I fit this all into my working day I suppose, but it is difficult

Courts are still subjective. The case above:

By October, Ms JC was presented with three options: return to a full-time funeral director role, transition to an administrative position with a salary of £15,925.35 on a four-week trial, or face dismissal. She rejected the administrative role, explaining that she “could not live on the reduced salary,” and was subsequently terminated later that month.

The Tribunal sided with Ms JC, with Employment Judge Nicol Hosie stating: “[Dignity] was fixated on requiring [Ms JC] to give an ‘end date,’ but that is equivalent to demanding she waive her right as a disabled person to reasonable adjustments. A reasonable employer would have allowed more time and given her a chance.”

They had done a phased return with reduced duties, if an indicative date couldn't even be given in regard to when it might be possible to resume heavy lifting and on call (which are fundamental to the role)- then what's unreasonable about offering an alternative more suitable role? Of course she was keen to keep the higher wage, but from a business perspective doesnt seem very fair. A different day a different court would have probably viewed their efforts as reasonable.

Yes that's another good idea, coffeeandmycats, the point being that it makes it about the actual workload rather than the personalities involved

Of course managers will be thrilled if someone else solves the problem for them, but that's not really what being a manager's about

This is an interesting thread.

As someone with autism, I accept there are jobs/hours I can't do. It would be great to have adjustments made for that, but it doesn't seem fair to a team to take all the best hours or whatever. It makes finding a job harder, obviously!

I was in a situation where the job was already challenging for me due to various aspects, particularly the way the rota was done. A new team member started who had limited availability due to childcare, which meant things got harder for the rest of us in terms of antisocial hours and last-minute timetables. This made it even harder for me to do my job and contributed to me eventually burning out and leaving.

There were so many difficulties in that job, that weren't there at the start, because my employer changed the way things were done and their expectations. However, the job was as a person assistant to a disabled person (a job with a real conflict of employee rights/disability rights), so I didn't feel able to challenge things.

@coffeeandmycats
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'd be interested to know what you think of the situation I was in! I felt taking a disabled person to tribunal was unfair, but then I'm a disabled person too! Also what about the balance between disabled employee's rights and the rights of an employee with childcare responsibilities?

I completely agree, but for a business it makes a lot more commercial sense to err on the side of caution and provide these adjustments than to deny them and risk paying out at a tribunal, if 10 disabled employees all go to a tribunal and 5 of them win 60k that's a 300k pay out (plus legal costs to defend the case), it's easier and cheaper to grant the adjustments, which also allows disabled staff to work which is good.

I feel like OP should raise it but maybe not mention the other people with disabilities in their argument as that may go down like a lead balloon.

thanks for sharing your experience - it sounds like a really tough situation to be in. I think it's important to remember that reasonable adjustments aren't about giving people special treatment, they are about removing barriers so that everyone can do their job, and sometimes this does involve amending the job duties somewhat.

the law doesn't require the adjustments to be fair to colleagues in a general sense, it only requires them to be fair on the disabled person who would otherwise be put at a disadvantage. This can sometimes feel unbalanced, especially in small teams or high pressure environments, but it's a legal and ethical obligation businesses must follow.

employers still have to balance adjustments with operational needs, but legally they are expected to go as far as is reasonable, even if that means inconveniencing or reshuffling other members of staff.

it's also worth noting that disabled people are often very aware of the impact on others, many people like yourself go above and beyond and try and push through silently until they burn out.

In regards to the childcare, legally disability adjustments largely trumps the persons right to flexible working for childcare.

Flexible working for childcare might be protected in law to some extent under things like day one flexible working rights or indirect sex discrimination claims, but disability rights are stronger in law. The equality act gives disabled people the right to reasonable adjustments, it's not option and when tested in court it does (usually) take priority over someone who has flexible working arrangements for child care. Effectively if a disabled person and someone who has childcare needs both request something, and both can't be accommodated, the law states the disabled persons adjustments have to come through first.

Why would we all need to do it though? We're not children, crying because someone had the toy for 5 minutes extra.
If this nurse needs that in order to do her job, and another nurse doesn't need it, then the adjustment levels the playing field, and allows her to stay in work, which is the whole point.
Disabled people are often at a disadvantage in work, adjustments help make things more equal, not less.

i agree completely, people are very quick to bash disabled people!

personally I feel England needs to do more to protect disabled peoples rights. Occupational health adjustments should be mandated in law, and companies should have to abide by them, currently if the employer disagrees with occupation health an employment tribunal makes the final outcome. In my opinion occupation health adjustments should be enforced legally

also a lot of people in this thread seem to state WFH isn't a reasonable adjustment and is unworkable, but just by searching I found 300+ cases where the judge ruled it was