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.

I've been through this twice with team members in different roles. The success of the adjustments was in large part down to the person with disabilities making sensible choices.
Several years ago I was sent a member of staff via a central recruitment process. It was an apprenticeship and included day release at a college, not in the same town but somewhere thousands of people commute to very easily. Job wise it included line management.
Within a couple of days it was apparent that they just couldn't do the job, 27 years old in first proper job and glaringly obvious to me that they had ASD. As they were on probation we could have got rid of them very quickly and easily.
We didnt, because we recognised that they had potential in other parts of the teams work. They recognised themselves that they couldn't manage college and work but for the first time they had a decent job with a pension and was desperate to stay.
Fortunately we had a vacancy for a role the next grade down so they were given the option of moving into that and keeping a job were people were supportive or leaving.
They stayed, became a valued member of the team, developed new skills etc. It was a very difficult and time consuming process to go through, only achievable really in a large organisation and dependent on both sides working together to find a solution we could all live with.
The other person not so much and left after a lot of grief.

So if the role required her to read anything - how would she have managed that? Genuine question. The vast majority of jobs require employees to read and write accurately.

no i encourage family and friends to go to an ET every time their reasonable adjustments are denied. Usually this enocurages the companies to comply.

her dyslexia flares up during stressful moments like interviews

Such as? Employers aren’t a charity. They pay a wage to people (who have chosen to be there) for the labour they provide. Beyond legalities in wages, breaks, etc and a safe work space I can’t think of any other obligations.

Then you know absolutely nothing about employment law!

It depends on the team set-up, really.

There’s one (small) bit of my role that I can’t do due to a disability. It’s a bit of the role that literally all my colleagues like, so they are happy to do that task while I pick up bits of their roles they don’t like so much.

Just passing extra work to someone else isn’t fair, but in my experience in a large enough team there’s always a bit of horse-trading about who does what.

I do think if you’re the person asking for accommodation you have to be prepared to take on at least your fair share of the shitty tasks if they’re within your capability, rather than just taking on the “prime” bits of the job.

1.5 employment claims per person - you might as well give it a try, you might get big bucks and it costs you nothing. And this is why we have basically nil economic growth and it's a shit country to run a company in.

There is specialist software to help with that

such as their obligation to provide adjustments... hence the thread.

Dyslexia flares up at interviews? You’re really having a laugh now OP aren’t you!

That actually happens quite often when people have failed at the senior position. They'll try to call it a 'sideways transfer' of course.

WFH has been a game changer for him. He can focus on his work without all the office politics. His contact with others is via email. No small talk... just straight to point and on the task at hand

exactly this! 🎯

Glad your son is happier now he has a better employer and is able to work from home.

But it comes down to what is a reasonable adjustment… surely that is very subjective?

I would argue that anything that means a business has to spend more money than on an able bodied person who could do the role is unreasonable unless the government can pay for that and it doesn’t affect any other employee. Or do you expect firms to have to pay a lot of money out of pocket? if so, how much?

There’s a fine tradition in many companies of incompetent senior people men being promoted to a position where they can’t do any harm

PT isn't a reasonable adjustment if the employer needs to fill a FT position. It's an unreasonable expectation.

Yes, stress does exacerbate dyslexia. However, most roles will have stressful moments. However, if a stressful situation affects her to a point where she isn’t able to read short questions, never mind a body of text, how can she effectively do the role?

The company settled on a legal technicality to not rack up more legal fees. They were right though - she wasn’t a good fit. She wasn’t able to read basic questions and therefore wouldn’t be able to read or reply to emails, read any type of document, sign for anything etc. She wasn’t able to do anything that required basic literacy. The company could see her coming with her “reasonable adjustments” where she swans in and gets paid to do a role that other people end up doing.

I’m interested to know at what point would you decide somebody is unsuitable for a job, rather than blaming a management failure to ensure that the department is always over-staffed in order to ensure adequate staffing when the person in question decides they are unable to work?

And all I have to say is that its amazing how many of this sudden influx of reasonable adjustments means staff cant come into the office 4 days a week...

If employers just made small, sensible adjustments, they wouldn’t get claims. I’m helping my uncle file against the charity he works for he has chronic foot pain (mild neuropathy), and asked to be allowed to go barefoot in the office because wearing shoes causes constant discomfort. He mainly does desk work but does occasionally meet clients.
HR still said no, called it “unprofessional,” and refused to consider it, even though he had a doctor’s note and it wouldn’t have cost them anything. Now they’re facing a claim. Under the Equality Act, the question isn’t whether the condition is dramatic it’s whether the adjustment removes a disadvantage, and whether it’s reasonable. And honestly, being able to work without pain is kind of the point.
They’ll probably settle before it even gets to tribunal like most do.

this is likely because covid showed everyone WFH was possible.

Also as technology has advanced people find it easier to allow people to WFH.

Fortunately judges have started awarding compensation to those who can't come into an office when employers try and force them in.

This, with bells on! Thank you!

A family member is autistic and has deteriorating mobility issues. They worked for the same company for years and never had a day's sick as they felt they needed to somehow prove that their disabilities did not impact their ability to be productive - probably because of the unkind and judgemental attitudes shown by some posters on this thread. Then there was a change in manager - a micromanaging bully. The relative tried to carry on but became increasingly unable to cope with the unrelenting unreasonableness. They went off sick with work-related stress and planned to resign.

Their union rep was fantastic. They confirmed my friend was the victim of both direct and indirect discrimination. The rep helped the relative submit an official grievance. Long story, short, personnel together with occupational health, senior management and the union rep agreed reasonable adjustments. This includes things such as a short period of time out when needed ... probably just 5 minutes to make a cuppa, being able to work from home and other minor adjustments.

None of the above impacts on work colleagues, but there's always one who moans 'it's not fair!'. It's not fair when that particular person nips off several times a day to have a 'cigarette break'. It's not fair when that person vapes in the office - both activities are banned, but my relative never said anything because they live and let live. Smokers work about 6 day's less a year due to their 'breaks'. It's not fair when that person always becomes poorly during school holidays! Some people are too quick to judge. Try walking a mile in my relative's shoes before saying 'it's not fair' that they have reasonable adjustments! It is absolutely fair that the Law is recognised and upheld but it is a shame my relative's mental health was severely impacted before that happened.

More power to you @coffeeandmycats

Surely you have to be employed by someone before you can take them to a tribunal?

I’m sorry but I absolutely would not want a colleague to be walking around barefoot in the office. That’s gross! How on earth is that a Reasonable adjustment?

if they aren't suitable for the job they should ideally be deployed or promoted or given a less stressful role on the same pay