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.

If you’re a business owner - why don’t you employ all these family members, with relevant adjustments?

Also. Imagine suing a charity. Grabby at it’s worst.

we actually did have someone with autism who we let not interact with customers. we made other staff do that part of the job whilst they prepared food, coffee and cleaned up after the cats

the charity didn't make adjustments though...

Have a look at the list of ET judgments online,
very very few have anonymity granted due to the principle of open justice. But yet all the ones you encourage people to bring, anonymity orders are granted?

Hey OP can I have a job? By the way I am extremely allergic to cats so would need to wfh but assuming you'd be good with that?

? it wasn't a secret i didn't name change for this

Taking money from a charity because your uncle’s feet hurt. I’ve heard it all.

because a lot of my family have (undiagnosed) or diagnosed autism. you can ask the judge to anonymize the case if your not public with your neurodiversity or if your form a soci economic background where disclosing it could harm you

well we won't be taking money as it's likely they will allow him to work barefoot

Were other adjustments discussed? Slippers, flip flops etc? Or was the adjustment that you deemed to be reasonable the only one that would do? In this scenario, a compromise would surely be possible?

potentially if you wanted to work in the kitchen as it's a cat free zone obviously dependent on how severe the allergy was

occupational health suggested WFH or barefoot

I did employ some to be fair.

How does your uncle get to and from work?

he gets the bus (barefoot) it's common in a lot of cultures the soles of your feet harden and adapt to being barefoot.

And what would happen if this person trod on a drawing pin or someone stepped backwards into them and their heel went into the top of their foot, or a hot drink was spilled?

How would this work in practice?

And yes, how would someone with a severe cat allergy work for you? Could you magic up a WFH role and the salary to pay for it out of nothing at all?

I read your OP and then the first page, where on about 3 occasions you were forced to admit that yes, OK, that would obviously be pretty difficult. On a single page.

I think employment for disabled people ought to start with what they can do and then move onto what they can do with reasonable adjustments.

I’ve often wondered whether disabled people who can do a job could get priority for it… to be given priority, a bit like all women lists. So if a disabled person applied for a job, showed they met the requirements for it, the employer would have to show they couldn’t to employ anyone else.

The problem then occurs when people self- identify as disabled and I’m sure lots of other issues.

it could be mandatory for government jobs and larger employers to achieve a certain percentage. Also the employer would have to demonstrate a range of job levels, so not only minimum wage jobs.

sex equality and racism in the work place only got better when it became illegal to discriminate- we needed the period of positive discrimination. It’s still not perfect, but it is better. Perfection is rarely achieved, so maybe better is enough to start with.

OP, I employ people, including some with disabilities or additional needs. But your whole attitude makes me less inclined to keep doing so, not more. You are not a good advert for your points.

well I hope if you don't make adjustments your staff all go to tribunals and you have to pay out everytime!

I think you’re absolutely right that more proactive inclusion like interview guarantees or targeted schemes would make a real difference. The current system still puts so much on the individual to “fit in” rather than shifting workplaces to be genuinely inclusive.
One of the big issues, though, is how hard it is to actually get a formal diagnosis. NHS waiting times for things like autism, ADHD, ME/CFS, and even mobility-related conditions can be years. And private diagnoses are expensive — so wealthier people are much more able to access them, while others are left in limbo.
That’s partly why the Equality Act 2010 allows for self-identification of disability it’s about whether the person has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term effect on day-to-day life, not about holding an official piece of paper.
So yeah, I agree that making employers demonstrate representation at all levels is a good goal but we also need to be careful not to create even more barriers based on who can afford a diagnosis. The current system already risks becoming a postcode and income lottery.

I’ve been an HR adviser for 13 years. I’ve worked in multiple sectors for large employers and have known of a number of employees who were taking the mick and meritless tribunal claims being made.

I am more on the side of beezlebub, who shared their experience as a union rep and was one of the first contributors to this thread.. I’ve also known of many instances where reasonable adjustments have been refused when there was no genuine reason to not implement them.
I’ve heard, “we’d be setting a precedent,” as a reason to not make an adjustment far too many times. That comment in itself tends to show how poorly the duty to make reasonable adjustments can be appreciated.

There was a recent decision involving an NHS trust, which lost a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim. Many of the issues present in the facts of this case are things I’ve seen in the wild often.

Davies v Gloucestershire Health & Care NHS Trust:

• The employee had a brain haemorrhage during her employment with the employer. Following this her memory and concentration were affected and she was more sensitive to noise and light in the office environment.
• The employee noticed her performance at work was being affected by various things and reported her concerns. Some adjustments were made but the employer’s position became nothing more could be done.
• She asked if she could work in a quieter part of the office and to use ear defenders. Both requests were refused. She went off with stress, an occupational health report was sought and that advised the employee would be unlikely to function well without adjustments being made.
• Adjustments were not made and the employee ended up staying at work late to get work done when the office was quiet enough. She eventually resigned.
• The tribunal decided the employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments and awarded over £27,000 compensation to reflect injury to feelings and loss of earnings.

You're raising fair points I get the worry about safety and practicalities. But reasonable adjustments are often about managing risks creatively, not just saying “no” the moment a challenge comes up.
The Equality Act 2010 requires employers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people if it helps remove barriers to work. Sometimes that does mean balancing health and safety with inclusion and yes, that can mean tweaking standard rules like footwear.
If someone has a medical condition (say, neuropathy, psoriasis, healing wounds, or deformities) that makes shoes painful or damaging, then going barefoot might be the only viable option. It wouldn’t be a free-for-all you’d do a proper risk assessment, maybe restrict access to certain areas (like kitchens or workshops), provide foam floor mats, keep the person away from heavy foot traffic, and make sure things like drink trays and drawing pins aren’t left around. It’s manageable in most office settings.
The HSE (Health & Safety Executive) doesn’t ban going barefoot it’s not inherently unsafe in an office. The law just says employers must take reasonable steps to protect employees from harm. That doesn’t mean blanket bans regardless of context.
And on your example about cat allergies again, that’s exactly why some disabled employees are given home-working arrangements. It’s not about “magic” solutions it’s about thinking flexibly. If someone with a severe allergy can’t safely be in a shared space, and their job can feasibly be done from home, that might well be the most reasonable (and legally required) option.
You're right not every adjustment is always going to be easy. But the point of the law is that inclusion shouldn't stop at “hard.” Sometimes what seems like a tricky change is actually pretty minor when you look at the detail. And the alternative forcing people out of work altogether is far more damaging, for them and for society.

I'm a teacher, a sendco and have a disabled child. I get it.
But, a teacher at my school who is notoriously bad at accomodating SEND has gone off sick repeatedly. She has now said she has ADHD and autism. She can't manage the workload, needs rest breaks, quiet, movement breaks, someone to do her planning and marking etc and to never be questioned about anything because if we do she goes off sick again.
How is that reasonable?
She was hired to do a job. If you can't manage full time reduce your hours or change career. The children's education is being affected at her constant absence but she won't admit that she can no longer manage.

We tried to suggest that the morning, afternoon and lunch breaks were suitable. That getting up and moving around the room (which is a normal part of teaching) provided movement, that her shouting at the kids wasn't ideal for a quiet environment etc and we were told we were unreasonable.

This teacher removed ear defenders from an autistic child because she didn't deem it 'loud enough ' to need them. She also denied a child the planned sensory circuits we had in place and said she would only allow them if she felt they needed them. Another child wasn't allowed to leave the room when dysregulated and then was punished for disrupting the class.

My school is reasonable but she is not.

Thank you for sharing this it honestly sums up the situation better than I could. That Davies v Gloucestershire NHS Trust case is such a clear example of how failing to make relatively minor adjustments can snowball into someone being pushed out of work altogether.
Letting someone use ear defenders or move to a quieter part of the office isn't exactly high drama. But instead of saying “yes, let’s try that,” the employer basically shrugged and let the situation deteriorate. That’s what so many disabled workers face not outright hostility, just quiet resistance and inaction, which is just as damaging in the long run.
I completely agree that the whole “we can’t set a precedent” line really exposes a poor understanding of the law. The duty to make reasonable adjustments is already a legal precedent it’s there to prevent people from being disadvantaged in the workplace because of something they can’t control.
And it’s not about making the workplace perfect or bending over backwards — it’s about showing a basic level of flexibility and humanity. That case shows exactly why the law exists: to stop people being punished for needing things that help them stay in work.
It’s also worth pointing out that most disabled people don’t want special treatment they just want to do their jobs without being driven to burnout, breakdown, or resignation. The fact that a tribunal awarded £27k in this case shows how serious it is when employers don’t get this right.