AIBU to think employers aren’t going nearly far enough with adjustments and that ableist attitudes are still totally normalised?

[coffeeandmycats]

I’m honestly so fed up with how “reasonable adjustments” are treated like some kind of special favour or workplace charity. They’re not. They’re a legal duty under the Equality Act, and they exist because without them, disabled people are shut out of employment or slowly squeezed out once they’re in.
Every time someone says “we couldn’t adjust the role” or “it wouldn’t be fair on the team,” what they usually mean is “we didn’t want to deal with it.” And that’s what drives me mad how often laziness, bias or lack of imagination is brushed off as “just being realistic.” That’s not realism. That’s ableism.
Most jobs can be adjusted. If someone can’t do one task but can do everything else why is the answer to push them out, instead of reshuffling the tasks or offering alternatives? We do this all the time in other settings. You wouldn’t chuck a kid out of school because they struggle with stairs. But in work, suddenly job specs are sacred texts.
And now, with the government trying to push more disabled people back into work (often with threats of benefit sanctions), where is the structural support? Employers still get to decide whether something is “reasonable,” even when they’ve shown time and again that they don’t understand or don’t care. That’s not a system that’s a gamble.
We should be encouraging every disabled person denied adjustments to take their employer straight to tribunal. I don’t care if it’s uncomfortable the law needs to be enforced. But also, it shouldn’t have to get that far. There should be an independent ombudsman-style service that employers must subscribe to something that can assess adjustment requests fairly and quickly, without making the disabled person go to war to be heard.
And honestly? If a business can’t afford to make space for disabled people, whether that’s with flexibility, equipment, transport help or task reallocation, then maybe they shouldn’t be in business. If your model only works when everyone is 100% able-bodied, then your model is broken. Shut it down.
AIBU to think we’ve got this totally backwards? That we’re still treating inclusion like a bonus feature instead of a basic requirement? That people who need adjustments are somehow seen as the problem instead of the systems and attitudes around them?
I’m sure this will rub some people the wrong way. Maybe that’s the point.

What kind of reasonable adjustments are you observing employers refusing to make?

OMG yes 👏👏👏

YANBU at all

thanks for agreeing!

On another thread, a lot of people were turning their noses up at adjustments like allowing short breaks between tasks or letting someone step away when overwhelmed things often needed by people with conditions like autism, anxiety, or chronic illness. These kinds of adjustments have been upheld by Employment Tribunals and are fully supported under the Equality Act.
But reasonable adjustments don’t stop there. Depending on the situation, they can also include:
Redeploying someone to a different role if their original job can’t be adjusted
Promoting or transferring them to a better-suited role, even if that role comes with higher pay or more opportunities, if it helps remove a barrier
Reassigning certain duties or tasks, even if this means the person is doing less than others
Reducing workload or output targets, such as call volumes or deadlines
Allowing home working, even if the original role was office-based
Offering a less senior or less stressful position but keeping the original pay, if it prevents the person from being pushed out entirely
Every one of these has been recognised by courts or tribunals in real-life cases. The key legal test is whether the adjustment removes or reduces the disadvantage caused by the disability, not whether it feels fair to colleagues or fits neatly into HR policy.
Employers aren’t just encouraged to make adjustments they are legally obligated to do so. And those adjustments can go far beyond what most people imagine.

There for the grace of God. I agree with you. Some people won't find empathy, until they are affected by a disability themselves.

I think it depends. You say “most” roles can be adjusted. You must mean general office roles. Because in my line of work (medical) plenty/most cannot. We had a receptionist at one of my previous jobs who went off sick for a few months with stress/anxiety and then self diagnosed herself with autism. I have no idea whether she is autistic or not. I am myself so I know how hard can be. On her return to work she put in a request for an adjustment to work from home as she could no longer cope with the travelling apparently and the job was causing burnout. It was refused. She started claiming all kinds of ableism etc. It went on for months and she went back off sick again until eventually they were able to get rid of her almost two years after it all started.

But I mean she was a receptionist. She was needed in the surgery to answer the phone and deal with patients in person. Her idea was she only dealt with emails and other computer work and they employed someone else to do the main reception at the surgery. But then they’d now be paying two people to do a one person job. That isn’t reasonable in my opinion.

completely true!

If this was an NHS setting, they could and arguably should have looked at redeployment options before letting her go. Large employers like the NHS have a duty to consider not just adjusting the existing role, but also whether the person could be moved into a different one that fits their needs better. That’s been backed up in tribunal decisions.
Also, for the purposes of the Equality Act, someone doesn’t necessarily need a formal diagnosis to be protected as disabled. The law looks at whether a person has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term effect on their ability to do normal day-to-day activities. That can absolutely include things like anxiety or autism even if they’re not officially diagnosed yet it’s about impact, not paperwork.
So while I understand that some jobs genuinely can’t be done remotely, the obligation isn’t just to say no and carry on t’s to explore all reasonable alternatives before giving up. Obviously if this was a smaller private clinic etc. then I agree this is a more difficult situation.

I didn't vote either because..
Some of these are entirely reasonable.
But others mean the person cannot do the job.
I was talking to someone who trains clinical psychologists. They are getting trainees who say they can't deal with certain topics due to anxiety. Now anxiety can be long lasting or temporary, and this could in an established professional mean they could adjust work temporarily but to train you must be able to do all aspects of the job. And as with all cases of anxiety, avoidance increases anxiety.
My DS has SEN and some types of jobs would be wholly unsuitable for him. Different people have different talents. Adjusting the job won't make some things suitable for him.

I get where you’re coming from, and you're right that not every role can be adjusted in every way especially in professions like clinical psychology where certain skills and exposures are core to the role. But that’s also why the law doesn’t say employers have to make any and all adjustments just ones that are reasonable and remove substantial disadvantage where possible.
That said, I think it’s important to separate two things: whether someone is ready to train in a specific field, and whether someone already in a role can stay in work with adjustments. For trainees, sure, it’s about being able to learn the full scope. But for existing staff, there’s often more flexibility job carving, task reallocation, or even redeployment are all valid legal options.
And you’re absolutely right that everyone has different talents but we can’t decide what someone’s limits are without giving them the tools to access the job properly in the first place. The point of adjustments isn’t to force people into roles they can’t do it’s to make sure they’re not being excluded before they’ve even had a chance.

It was a small private dental surgery. Only 8 staff members total. 3 dentists, 3 nurses a hygienist and the receptionist. Every single job for obvious reasons needed to be on site. And being so small (despite what people seem to think about rich dentists) they could not afford to employ two people for the same role. And quite frankly even if they could, why should one receptionist who has to deal with them brunt of the work and have loads more stress get paid the same as another receptionist who just answers a few emails all day? The bulk of the work for a dental receptionist is in person patients and phone calls.

I’m autistic. There are plenty of jobs I can’t do due to my autism (and also due to my personality). I’ve also left jobs that I’ve realised I can’t do for either and both of those reasons. So I get it sucks. But sometimes in life you just need to hold your hands up when I job really isn’t for you.

I think what annoys people is when the reasonable adjustment for one employee leads to additional or unfair adjustments for other employees or the employer.

Thanks for clarifying the context a private dental surgery with only 8 staff is definitely very different from a big NHS trust, and you're right that smaller employers do have more limited capacity when it comes to adjustments. The law does take that into account. If an employer genuinely can't afford to make a certain adjustment, or if the core duties of a role can't be changed without making the job unworkable, then it might not be considered reasonable especially if there's no alternative role in the business.
But with that said, the law still expects all employers, regardless of size, to explore every possible option before saying no. That includes task redistribution, hours changes, and temporary adjustments, even if the business is small. It's not about keeping two people in one job forever, but whether a short-term compromise could help keep someone in work while longer-term solutions are considered.
Also, just because someone has to leave a job doesn’t mean they failed or were wrong to apply health conditions can develop or worsen over time. And a role that was manageable at the start might not stay that way. That’s why the duty to adjust exists to support people through those changes if it's possible.
So I do think you’re being reasonable in saying some jobs genuinely can't be adjusted much, but I also think we need to be careful not to set the bar too low just because it’s inconvenient. Every situation needs a proper, case-by-case look not a default assumption that the role can’t change at all.

Completely agree, OP. Some of the posters who've responded to you do not understand the Equality Act 2010 and the subsequent duties that are triggered by disadvantages employees with illnesses and disabilities face. I'm a union rep and even in the public sector, things are not as good as they could be in that regard. I regularly deal with personal cases where reasonable adjustments have been refused when there's no clear business need reason provided. The bar to refuse them, legally speaking is very high and frankly, many reasonable adjustments are things that make work better for everyone. Not just those who have a disability.

me, my dh, my dd & my ds are all neurodiverse.

there need to be some protections in place but it’s gone too far.

I think this is a common misunderstanding. The law actually does allow for disabled people to be treated more favorably than non-disabled people if that’s what’s needed to remove a disadvantage. That’s not unfair treatment it’s lawful positive action. The whole point of reasonable adjustments is to create equity, not strict equality.
So yes, someone might be given different duties, more flexibility, or reduced expectations even if others in the team aren’t. That’s not discrimination against the rest of the staff it’s protection for the person with a disability, and it’s fully allowed under the Equality Act.

I appreciate your response and totally understand that this topic brings up strong feelings, especially when it affects people personally. But from my perspective, I actually think it hasn’t gone far enough. There are still far too many people being pushed out of work, denied fair access to jobs, or quietly managed out because employers don’t want to deal with adjustments.
In my view, the government should be doing more not less to hold employers accountable and to create structures that make inclusion easier, not optional. There’s a long way to go before we can say the system truly works for neurodiverse or disabled people.

Where I work it’s actually the demands of govt organisations that make some adjustments impossible to achieve.

And who pays for these adjustments? Businesses are under huge pressures financially and for many SMEs they simply can't afford to hire someone who needs significant RAs. Not nice but true.

Some RAs cause huge issues for other members of the team too ie higher workloads + more pressure which then impacts on their mental health + wellbeing. I've seen it so many times in the workplace

Fair enough not every adjustment will be reasonable in every setting. But just to say, government bodies aren’t immune from the long arm of an employment tribunal judge either. They still have to follow the Equality Act like everyone else.

I Completely agree that reasonable adjustments must be made, but no extra work should be put onto other staff.

I was given the task of looking after some poor woman hired who had disabilities. I had to help her complete her work as well as my own, and I got no extra pay or even any training. I wasn’t a carer ffs but I was treated like one, probably because I was the only woman on the team.

Sorry if that sounds rude but we were both let down by the company and it was in no way her fault. We both left around the same time and still keep in touch

When you work for a prison or a hospital what they say goes. It’s basic health & safety requirements - the hoops to jump through for contractors are immense.

Shouldn’t it mean that the whole team is properly resourced so the workload, when equitably distributed, isn’t unreasonably burdening some members of the team? Reasonable adjustments are vital, clearly - but it seems some employers take the easy way out and just load too much work on some of their employees, rather than making sure the whole team can work to the best of their abilities.

Since becoming ill I don’t have the stamina or focus to do the job I used to do. It would be totally unfair of me to stay in post, increasing the pressure on everyone else. I reduces my hours to the point where I can cope.

Seriously we no longer have spare capacity in the workplace.

Some of your examples I agree with, others not so, and I agree companies have to make reasonable adjustments, but at the same time the person can’t make unreasonable demands.

For example, I worked with someone who had mobility problems , so if we needed to go
upstairs (eg to go to photocopier), I did those tasks, but colleague still did main reception and admin jobs. It worked out well. Everyone was happy.