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.

Glad you had a laugh, but this isn’t some wild opinion it’s settled employment law.
Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where a disabled employee is placed at a substantial disadvantage. And yes, that can include being promoted or transferred to a more suitable role, even if it’s better paid if that’s what’s needed to remove the disadvantage.
This isn’t just theory. In Archibald v Fife Council (2004), the House of Lords ruled that a woman who became disabled and could no longer do her road sweeper job should have been automatically transferred into a more senior desk job, even without a competitive interview process. The employer had argued it wasn’t fair to others the court said tough. The Equality Act allows more favourable treatment of disabled people to correct systemic disadvantage.
Another case, Southwark v Charles (2014), involved a council worker with mental health issues who was given a less stressful role on the same pay. That was upheld as a reasonable adjustment.
You might feel it’s unfair, but the law says otherwise. These adjustments are about retaining disabled staff and preventing them being pushed out of work through inflexibility not rewarding performance. It’s not about “earning” a role through meritocratic purity; it’s about removing barriers that others don’t face in the first place.
As for “employers might avoid hiring disabled people” well, if they do that deliberately, that’s direct discrimination and also unlawful. You don’t solve inequality by making disabled people more palatable to biased employers you fix the discrimination.
So maybe don’t laugh next time. Try reading the law.

I am sure they are trying but I’m curious as to what adjustments you would like that they aren’t doing. How much money do you think would be reasonable for them to spend on those accomodations?

Absolutely. Employers are terrified of falling foul of disability or other discrimination legislation, being hauled to tribunals and having to settle out of court because they just cannot risk the loss or afford the costs. So they go out of business.

And if it's public sector, we're all paying for the anxious police officer to opt out of 50% of the job. According to the OP, they should just be promoted, poor lamb.

there is case law of employees successfully suing for not being able to walk around bare foot though...

Honestly, this is exactly why the law exists to stop employers doing the bare minimum and calling it support.
There was a case recently, Davies v Dignity Funerals, where a woman had been through a bone marrow transplant and cancer. She came back to work part-time as a funeral director and asked for some very basic adjustments no heavy lifting and no on-call shifts. Instead of working with her, they told her to take a lower-paid admin role or basically leave.
She ended up being sacked and took them to tribunal. She won and was awarded over £60,000. The tribunal made it clear that her employer hadn’t tried hard enough, hadn’t explored all the options, and had basically pushed her out because it was easier.
So when people ask, “How far do adjustments have to go?” the answer is: as far as necessary to keep disabled employees in work without being disadvantaged. Not just what's cheapest or most convenient for the employer.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6761a7401ca3ec0a49e19054/4102767.2019_-Ms_J_Crampshee_v_Dignity_Funerals_Limited-_Judgment_Issued_22.02.2024.pdf

So in summary the current law isn't fit for purpose. If I need to do a lower level job, I would expect to be paid the going rate for that job. If a job role says I would need to travel long distances on a regular basis, I wouldn't even apply for that role. I once terminated an interview for a good job because of one integral part of it I wouldn't have been able to do which came up during the interview - though my driving licence covers me for manual cars, I now need to drive an automatic car and the role required me driving a small manual company van (which would also probably not suit my back).

As the law stands, it will definitely deter companies from employing anybody with disabilities so is counter productive.

Anyone besides me curious what happens when the person with a cat phobia, the uncle who can’t wear shoes , the person with dyscalculia, and the person with social anxiety all decide to work in the OP’s cat cafe all at the same time time?

OP runs a cat cafe? I am violently allergic to cats, and I don't particularly like them. In fact, you could say they both make me ill, and anxious. I don't want to be around them. So I apply for a job in the OP's cat cafe, she hires me, I then say that actually, being around cats isn't working for me so the reasonable adjustment is that I just work from home some of the time updating the facebook page and dealing with invoices, and the other cafe staff will just have to cover my work. Oh, and I'll have all of my salary for 50% of the work, and if that doesn't fly, OP should promote me to general manager.

FFS.

no need to bash me for standing up for disabled rights...

this is why i advise people to hide their disability until an offer is made and spring it on the employer on their first day!

So when people ask, “How far do adjustments have to go?” the answer is: as far as necessary to keep disabled employees in work without being disadvantaged.

I'm not sure that's right OP. Surely it's "as far as is reasonable" (of course with some leeway in what reasonable means)

i mean you could work in the kitchen that's a cat free zone

I think it's a tough balance, but in general judges seem to err on the side of disabled staff fortunately.

I have worked for many companies that have made almost zero profit. We could barely afford the rent. Many start ups , charities and SmE’s struggle and are often already understaffed. The idea that companies have bags of money to spend on these adjustments you suggest is ridiculous. I think you live in a world where you think companies are all floating around with bags of cash whereas the reality is that the backbone of the country is small companies grafting away for very little return. I’d be very accommodating of a colleague wearing headphones and working flexible hours etc but I wouldn’t be happy if they got to work 20 hours a week and I had to do 65 for the same pay because the company could only afford the 2 of us

OP I'll give you a genuine scenario. A friend used to run a small shop. It was just him, and the profits weren't huge. He eventually decided to hire an employee to help him. The employee was nice enough but was constantly off feeling unwell, feeling anxious, not having slept well due to feeling unwell or anxious, etc. There was no-one else to cover, and he couldn't afford to pay another employee, so he ended up doing 12 hour shifts to cover both his shift and hers. There was no other work he could give her - the only work was working in the shop.

To me this seemed massively unfair on my friend who ran the shop. He had to pay her whilst doing both his shift and hers. He was knackered and didn't see enough of his kids during this time. What should have happened here OP?

if that's the case why are these judgements upheld?

It seems like this is the way the wind is blowing. Person with protected category like disability applies for promotion, does not get it due to being unable to do the work, and takes employer to tribunal.

some of this is crazy, i have a very small business where I employ three people. The main two considerations for employing someone new would be the needs of the company and the needs of my existing staff.

I won’t compromise the requirements of the role needed, these are professional jobs, there are no extra people to spread the work to, there would be zero point in employing someone who can’t do the job.

two of my three employees have significant disabilities and adjustments, all three are equally capable of doing the work, there are just differences in how each of them get there.

I would not employ anyone who needed to work in bare feet, about 80% of our clients have varying degrees of mobility aids, and some of the driving of powered wheelchairs and bare feet wouldn’t work at all!

can’t have someone with severe pet allergies, one of the women who works for me has a guide dog with her in working hours, it wouldn’t be reasonable for the dog to be away from her, he has his space in the office, he freely wanders around when she’s doing computer work. Restricting him would be cruel.

I will make any and all adjustments that don’t unfairly burden existing staff, but only if they are actually able to do it work.

He totally should have have promoted her to owner.

(Sorry… your friend was in a shit position but I can’t take the OP seriously anymore and I’m waiting for for her to say similar)

I do understand why that felt unfair running a small business is tough and your friend was clearly under a lot of pressure. But the reality is, once you become an employer, even if it’s just one staff member, you take on legal responsibilities. That includes the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
That doesn’t mean they had to go bankrupt or carry someone forever who genuinely couldn’t do the job. But it does mean they couldn’t just get frustrated and carry on without going through the proper steps. They should have looked at whether any adjustments could have helped like changing hours, getting medical input, or giving the person time to recover. If it turned out the person really couldn’t do the job even with support, then that’s one thing. But you can’t just assume or skip the process that’s where legal problems start.
And to be honest, we always hear these stories from the employer’s side. No one ever stops to ask why the person was so anxious or unwell in the first place. Sometimes the pressure or lack of support is part of the problem too.
I get it small businesses have it hard. But if someone can’t or won’t support disabled staff at all, and refuses to engage properly when issues come up, then maybe they’re not in a position to be hiring yet. That’s just the reality of employing people rights come with responsibilities.

I work in facilities management, so see some of the practicalities that this creates. I think, largely speaking, colleagues are supportive of adjustments that involve stuff (materials etc) to allow someone to get a job done, for example a ramp, a larger monitor, a printer being added or relocated. People are generally also supportive of flexibility eg having 2 30 minute breaks instead of 1 hour. Most people draw the line where the workload / expectations are lowered for some without a lower rate of pay.

All the judgements you’ve quoted have had very specific sets of circumstances, and having read through them I can see the logic behind the decisions.

I am not sure any of them necessarily set a legal precedent for small firms or people in different circumstances.

You’ve basically just admitted that you won’t make adjustments if they don’t suit you even though that’s literally illegal.
The Equality Act 2010 doesn’t say, “Make adjustments unless you don’t feel like it” or “Only if they don’t mildly inconvenience anyone.” It says you must make reasonable adjustments where someone is at a disadvantage due to disability. That doesn’t mean you get to pre-declare a blanket no to things like barefoot working or pet allergies without even assessing the actual risk or exploring alternatives.
You say two of your three staff have disabilities great, that’s as it should be. But that doesn’t make you immune from discrimination claims. In fact, it’s worse because you clearly know what your duties are and you’re still saying publicly that you’ll refuse certain adjustments if they don’t fit your personal sense of what’s reasonable. That’s not flexibility that’s gatekeeping disabled people out of work unless they meet your idea of “conveniently disabled.”
And by the way — reasonable doesn’t mean easy or free. It means proportionate. You can’t just say “I don’t want to” and act like you’ve done your bit. If you refuse to consider adjustments properly and then someone takes you to tribunal the fact you posted this proudly would probably help their case.
You don’t get to opt out of the law just because your business is small or you’ve decided certain people are too difficult. That’s not pragmatism it’s discrimination.

I think the OP wants to get her money’s worth out of her read of the Equality Act 2010… this isn’t the only thread where it’s getting a lot of airplay.

So weirdly it’s both a carrot and a stick for the the OP.

sorry what?