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.

‘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.’
Have you ever ran a SME? This is a sweepingly ridiculous statement which I take offence to, I do my best for my staff, I do run a SME and while I have made adjustments for people when I can the majority of my staff need to be people facing and on their feet most of the day. Not discrimination, just the business I am in.

I get that running a small business isn’t easy, but I’m honestly tired of disabled people being treated like an inconvenience or luxury item.
You took offence? Imagine being excluded entirely from a career because you can’t be on your feet all day and your access needs are seen as “too difficult.” No one’s saying every single job can be done by every disabled person but when someone suggests your business model shouldn’t depend on total able-bodiedness, that’s not ridiculous. That’s realism.
The Equality Act 2010 already says you’re expected to make reasonable adjustments not just when it’s easy or cheap. “We do our best” is a nice slogan, but if “our best” still means disabled people get turned away or quietly pushed out, maybe it’s time to do better. Not every business can be accessible to everyone but the idea that even trying is too much? That is ableist, and it’s why so many disabled people are stuck without income or opportunity.
You say it’s not discrimination but if someone literally can’t access your job because of inflexible practices and no adjustments, that is the legal definition of indirect discrimination.
And honestly? If you’re refusing to make adjustments you could make, I genuinely hope someone takes you to tribunal and that it hits your business hard enough to make you finally understand what discrimination costs.

this doesn't sound reasonable at all, maybe they could be redeployed to an admin based role?

No, sorry, you haven’t replied to any of my points adequately at all. You must surely understand that an employer who allows an employee to go around barefoot is completely exposed to be sued by that person for any one of the accidents I mentioned happening. And no one with one wounds should be barefoot like that, FFS.

And by magic up I mean that you would have to create a job and a salary that isn’t needed, hasn’t existed and most small businesses won’t have the money in the bank to take on (and therefore in your opening post those businesses deserve to fold and their employees lose their jobs).

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

That’s not what you were saying earlier though. Some people don’t want to do their jobs and apparently it’s very reasonable for them to not have to do all of their job, they can just ask to do the bits they can manage. So which is it, do they want to do their job or not?!

To me "reasonable" means it doesn't have a significant adverse effect on your colleagues. I have to avoid infection and my employer lets me sit in a quiet part of the office.

But I did think about leaving a job when I had a new colleague who couldn't use the phone. If she focussed on only the emails and I did the calls my job had changed to one I didn't want any more. The emails generated more questions, so more calls and I was doing more than one job in the end, whilst they had free time. The impact made me dislike a job I'd previously liked.

I'd have no problem with bare feet. Happy to collect post or whatever. But if the main content of your job changes, it just isn't right or fair.

I really appreciate your thinking here it’s such a refreshing change from the usual “adjustments are unfair” takes.
Starting with what people can do and then considering what adjustments might unlock even more is exactly how employment for disabled people should work. So often it’s the other way round: people get screened out before they’ve even had a chance to show what they’re capable of with support.
Your idea of priority hiring or guaranteed consideration isn’t actually that far-fetched. Some government departments and public sector bodies in the UK already have policies like this under the Disability Confident scheme, if a disabled applicant meets the minimum criteria for a role, they must be offered an interview. It’s not quite the same as guaranteed hiring, but it’s a step in the right direction and there's no reason why it couldn’t be strengthened or expanded to include actual hiring targets or representation at different levels.
And yes, I get the concern about self-identification but we have to remember that loads of disabled people can’t access a formal diagnosis due to NHS wait times or the cost of private assessment. That’s why the Equality Act 2010 uses a functional definition of disability: it’s based on the impact on day-to-day life, not whether you’ve got a consultant’s letter. That helps level the playing field for people who might otherwise be excluded twice over once by their condition, and again by bureaucracy.
Like you said perfection isn’t possible, but better is. And better starts with policy that sees disabled people as contributors with rights, not burdens to be managed.

It isn’t a misunderstanding. I saw I was the only member of the team not legally protected from having to travel to another office and I resigned.

This is nuts. The example was of a POLICE OFFICER who picks and chooses the bits of the job he/she wishes to do or not do, doesn't want to do anything too traumatic, won't work nights.

There's reasonable adjustments, and there is taking the absolute piss. This person is not suited to being a police officer. Unless they are working in an office taking fingerprints or something. There comes a point where the adjustments are not reasonable and refusing to do a huge part of the role is taking the piss.

I get that your experience was frustrating, but it’s important to be clear that’s not what the law says “reasonable” means.
The Equality Act 2010 doesn’t define a reasonable adjustment based on whether it mildly inconveniences colleagues. If that were the test, almost no disabled person would ever get the support they need. The law places the primary duty on the employer to remove barriers even if it requires rebalancing workloads or changing job roles. The key test is whether the adjustment helps remove the substantial disadvantage for the disabled employee, and whether it’s practical and proportionate for the business not whether it changes what a colleague personally prefers doing.
Yes, employers should manage workloads fairly but that doesn’t mean blocking someone’s legal rights to an adjustment just because someone else dislikes a certain task. If someone can’t use the phone due to a disability, the solution isn’t to resent them it’s for the employer to make sure the work is resourced appropriately.
This idea that adjustments are only reasonable if no one else is ever affected? That’s just not how the law works and honestly, if that were the standard, disabled people would be shut out of half the workforce.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, I used to work for an employer whose business was at the top of a flight of stairs in a listed building. Should they have stopped trading because they couldn't meet the needs of every potential employee? They were exempt from having to provide full access for customers because of the building design.

Can. I just say I’m really glad I work, hire, and manage teams in a different country than the OP and her family 😳

Even in the land of no employment rights (as others like to call it) we seem to have a sane approach to disabilities and reasonable adjustments.

It must be a dialogue, it must be ya know reasonable (I don’t think the do a lower paying job but get paid the higher rate or here’s a promotion that you get to bypass requirements and interviewing would fly here), it doesn’t mean changing core requirements of the job, and it’s most importantly fair to both sides.

I honestly don’t think we have the same frequency of things like stress leave or MH type of adjustments. I just can’t imagine trying to manage a team with people signing off for months due to stress as often as it appears to happen based of threads (I’m wondering if it’s a self-selecting population that posts here making it seem like a bigger problem). I honestly never understood stress leave. It’s not like taking time off removes stress from a job… isn’t it just waiting for you when you get back?

On my team the requests I’ve had have been few and far between. They’ve been handled informally with minor tweaks that worked for the employee and they were informed that if they needed something more me we could talk but it may require a more formal discussion with Hr, which I was happy to have.

@coffeeandmycats I don’t think your tribunal ’wins’ are the flex you think it is… your family ’won’ because it’s cheaper to settle and depending on the circumstances will likely catch up eventually to make it hard if not impossible to get hired in the future.

Really the example of your uncle and shoes is just embarrassing… The reasonable adjustment in my part of the world is that you have to wear shoes but you don’t have to follow dress code (unless in an area that requires a certain type of shoe for safety). So wear flip flops or fuzzy bunny slippers… but you have to wear something on your feet.

My staff don’t need to take me to tribunal. I employ several staff who have been employed with me for a long time, one 27 years, and have made adjustments as they have developed conditions whilst in my employment. I make adjustments to suit their needs when I can and my staff are happy with this. I have no concerns regarding tribunals and none of my staff have ever felt they could not come to me because their “access needs are too difficult’ and they are well aware I will do whatever it takes to try and meet their requirements. I do still take offence at your attitude to SMEs. I am leaving this thread now as I genuinely do not think you are benefiting anyone with your responses.

Yep. And people like the OP, if she’s genuine, are simply enabling the piss takers.

OP I hope someone with a cat phobia applies for a job in your cafe and then sues you when they don’t get it 😂

Yes, employers should manage workloads fairly but that doesn’t mean blocking someone’s legal rights to an adjustment just because someone else dislikes a certain task. If someone can’t use the phone due to a disability, the solution isn’t to resent them it’s for the employer to make sure the work is resourced appropriately.

Right, so if the budget allows for 2 employees and the role consists of 50% emails and 50% phone calls and the employer recruits someone who can’t use the phone, you’d think it’s fair for the other employee to be 100% phone based? Even if they’re more interested in / better at the email side of their job? That doesn’t seem fair at all. I get what you’re saying, and in a larger employer there would be more options, but an employer has a duty of care to all their employees, not just those with a disability.

You can think the Act is flawed and bring up so-called disability fakers, but something has to be done to help people either disabilities stay in their existing jobs, find alternatives or find employment at all.

Moaning about people you don’t think are ‘disabled enough’ and how they shouldn’t be allowed to affect you isn’t making any contribution to the task of helping disabled people in the workplace.

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.

Unfortunately this opens things up to people taking the piss big time. I could declare I have anxiety & use this to demand adjustments which would increase the workload for everyone else I work with, whether I do or not. Whether you accept it or not, there ARE people who insist they have particular ND conditions as a good wheeze to get what they want and wouldn't even try to be diagnosed because they know they are unlikely to get a formal diagnosis.

Read up about the number of people who read up on ADHD and decide they must have it because they can be forgetful, or sometimes misplace things - perfectly normal for the majority of people but so many sites about on the internet that suggest if you show any of the signs of ADHD at any time, and to any degree, you definitely have ADHD and can therefore demand adjustments like being given a pass if you forget (or don't get round to doing) a critical or urgent piece of work, or miss something critical you should have noticed, or just faff around all day and get nothing done. The adjustments asked for always seem to be ones that give the person claiming the disability less work, more time at home, fewer hours, or not having to produce work anywhere near the required quality. I see so often case notes at work where the person says they can't work because of their severe ADHD but flatly refuse to even consider getting a diagnosis - I worked until I was 60 struggling with my ADHD which when diagnosed I was told was "off the scale" in some aspects; I have certain adjustments in place that help me get my work done in time & of the required quality these days, not ones that let me get away with it.

But they should still be making adjustments that’s the whole point of the Equality Act. Just because one barrier (like stairs in a listed building) can't be easily fixed doesn’t mean the employer is off the hook from trying anything else.
Could they have offered hybrid or remote roles? Could they have moved interviews or meetings to accessible venues? Could some tasks be done off-site? Being in a listed building doesn’t magically remove the duty to be inclusive it just means that specific adjustment (e.g., installing a lift) might not be reasonable. But they still have a legal duty to think creatively and remove other barriers where they can.
Too many businesses hide behind “we can’t do X” as an excuse to do nothing when actually the law expects them to at least try. Not being able to do everything is understandable. Refusing to do anything? That’s discrimination.
So yes, even that business should have made adjustments maybe not a lift, but certainly something.

This, I don't understand it. How can it be a 'promotion' when they can't actually do the.tasks? How will the employer make the other staff do these tasks then? "Right Lucille, Betty's now been promoted to your manager, but can't do any of the actual management tasks so you've to do them.... oh and no extra salary or bonus. Just do it or else' ? 🤨

his kind of post is exactly why so many disabled people are afraid to ask for adjustments because no matter what they say, someone’s waiting to accuse them of “taking the piss.”
The Equality Act 2010 doesn’t allow people to just “declare” anything for fun. It defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term negative effect on daily life. Employers don’t have to take someone’s word for it they’re fully entitled to ask for evidence of impact, whether that’s through occupational health, fit notes, or workplace assessments. Self-ID doesn’t mean “no proof,” it just means you don’t need a gold-plated diagnosis from a consultant to be taken seriously.
Yes, some people misunderstand or misuse labels. But that’s true of literally any system. You don’t tear up employment rights because you suspect a few people might abuse them. That’s not justice it’s just ableism wrapped in admin talk.
And as for the tired “they’re just lazy and want an easy ride” line? Please. Most disabled people are working harder than everyone else just to stay in employment. The idea that adjustments are some kind of cheat code to get out of work is insulting, and flat-out wrong. Adjustments exist to level the playing field not to let people produce poor quality work with no accountability.
And just to add two members of my own family have self-identified as autistic because they couldn’t afford or access formal diagnosis. They still went to tribunal, and won. Because the law is about impact, not paperwork. You don’t get to gatekeep someone’s disability just because they haven’t jumped through the same hoops you did.
You managed to get support eventually great. That’s what everyone deserves. But dragging others for seeking help sooner or in different ways doesn’t make you principled. It just makes you part of the problem.

There should be a stronger obligation for Reasonable Adjustments. However, employers should also have a duty to uphold Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value. It is not reasonable for a disabled person to have a more junior, lower responsibility role at the same pay as someone doing a senior/higher responsibility role, or to be recieving 100%FTE pay while only performing 75%FTE workload. Employers certainly should create these adjustments but absolutely should reassess and reduce the pay according to what the employee is actually achieving. And likewise should reassess the coworkers pay if the adjustment for a disabled colleague has bounnced more difficult tasks onto them. Several illustrations in the OP are about an expectation for disabled people to recieve better and more privileged treatment than their peers, and to be paid at a higher rate than people doing the same work, rather than equality.

“If they aren’t suitable for the job they should ideally be promoted” … I’ve heard some mad statements in my time on MN but this one really made me laugh.

The problem with what you are suggesting is that employers will simply avoid hiring disabled people if they consider it too financially risky for their business.

You don’t have to understand it but that is how the law works.
Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments where a disabled employee is put at a substantial disadvantage. That can include reassigning duties, reducing workload, redeploying someone into a different role, or even allowing them to retain their existing pay in a lower-stress job if it helps them stay in employment.
And yes it can even include transferring someone into a higher-paid or more senior role if it’s more suitable and prevents discrimination. This isn’t something I’ve made up it’s supported by case law, including the House of Lords decision in Archibald v Fife Council, where the employer was found to have discriminated by refusing to transfer a disabled woman to a more senior desk job, despite her being unable to continue her original (lower-grade) role due to disability. They should have redeployed her without competitive interview and yes, with the higher pay.
You’re mocking a legal requirement as if it’s some fantasy wishlist. It isn’t. These adjustments exist to keep disabled people in the workforce, not to hand out favours. And no, employers don’t get to cry “but the others will have to pick up the slack!” and just ignore the law. If someone can’t do management tasks, then maybe the employer should restructure the role or assign support staff — not punish the disabled person for having access needs.
What you’re describing isn’t clever scepticism it’s just bad HR and worse legal advice. If an employer followed your logic, they’d end up at tribunal and lose. Spectacularly.
Disability rights aren’t optional. They’re the law.

Even worse… “Look Betty we know you’ve been working towards this for awhile now… but we’re not even going to give you a chance to interview…Lucille can’t do her own job so we’re promoting her into that position.”

Op, i totally agree. I don't think people fully understand until they have been in the position themselves. After being off work sick for 2 years (cancer relapse immediately followed by a bone marrow transplant) i recently returned. I am no longer able to work ft and work very part time hours now. My employers have been fairly supportive but I don't think they truly understand the difficulties that I face daily.