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 would you do if someone needed to not wear shoes, would you let them or go to tribunal against them?

Yes because they will not be able to afford the court case, so will have to give in.

I mean I agree with all the general points you make but you haven't really answered my question. I'm not sure what should have happened here? She would phone up regularly first thing in the morning and say she couldn't work that day due to xyz. So he had to do it all.

I'll give you my answer - see what you think. My answer is there has to be give and take on both sides, and a genuine desire to make things work on both sides. In my view, if she was genuinely really poorly she should of course take the day off. But if she just felt a bit under the weather or tired she should have come in and got on with it. He wasn't a slave driver, she could have said "I really need some caffeine, do you mind if I put a sign on the door for 5 mins and get a coffee" and he'd have been fine with it. Feeling anxious - again she should have come in and got on with it in my view - but if there were things that would make her less anxious she should of course have suggested them, and if they were doable he'd have said yes - he's a lovely guy. But just saying "I feel anxious so I'm not going to work" is not okay in my book.

To be honest @Dr fosters, they are fairly supportive like I've said. The reasonable adjustments are cheap such as having a chair available (chairs already available in building ) and going pt but I jobshare now, so no cost or difficulties there. The main issue was building up my hours again, they pressured me to increase quite quickly, too quickly really but I managed it in the end. I expect no reasonable adjustments to cost my employer money. Understanding is what i need and they are getting there.

because they know they will lose if they don't follow the law. Would it really bother you if your mortgage advisor or solicitor or HR manager walked around without shoes and socks on?

She's taking the piss and should have been fired.

You are really being unfair on the employer here. The PP already said the reason she wouldn't let an employee go barefoot is because many clients are driving powered wheelchairs badly! But in this situation you'd still encourage someone to try to sue their employer for insisting on shoes? She's just trying to prevent the employee from getting his foot run over by a heavy wheelchair! Surely the sensible solution is to find some kind of compromise footwear, and be able to take them off when sitting at a desk? Not just say "I'm suing you"??

Weren’t you the one bemoaning the fact that that the Equalities Act was only civil and not criminal and that you couldn’t call the police to enforce it?

So it’s a carrot when it works for you and I guess you can’t use it as stick to beat others with when it suits. (Not my best analogy but it’s been a long day).

Really the point was you seem to be getting some mileage out of it.

No because win or lose it still costs them money. How hard is that for you to understand?

I appreciate your thoughtful reply, and I don’t think we’re miles apart I agree there should be give and take on both sides, and ideally, there’s open communication and effort from both employer and employee to make it work.
But here’s where I push back a bit: if someone’s regularly calling in sick due to anxiety or other health issues, that’s a sign something deeper is going on it’s not just about needing caffeine or pushing through. Mental health conditions can be disabling under the Equality Act, and when that’s the case, it’s not as simple as “just get on with it.” For some people, the act of walking through the door during a bad spell takes everything they’ve got.
You say she should’ve suggested what would help totally agree. But it’s also the employer’s legal duty to ask, not just wait passively. That’s where things often go wrong. The employee may not know what’s allowed or what counts as “reasonable.” A good employer needs to guide that process, not just rely on good vibes and hope.
Your friend might be lovely but without proper occupational health input, without documenting the pattern, and without exploring adjustments formally, he was exposed legally. It might feel like common sense to say, “Well, if you’re tired or anxious, just show up anyway,” but legally and ethically, that can be risky and it might not be reasonable, depending on the individual.
So yes, I agree: genuine effort on both sides is essential. But the law is clear the responsibility to start and lead that reasonable adjustment process lies with the employer. Even small ones. It’s not about being a pushover. It’s about meeting your legal obligations and treating people like humans, not liabilities.

All/most of these are good things, but things like reducing targets, or offering a step down in responsibility for the same pay, would be impossible for most small and many medium businesses to absorb - so many are on a knife edge in this economy as it is.

So the government needs to do more to support smaller businesses to make this really work.

Yes it really would. Sorry but having someone’s cheesy feet out near me would be revolting. I would raise a grievance if I had someone walking around with their feet out. There is no way in the world that there are no specialist shoes to deal with the problem. I think this is just trolling now.

Yes. I would go elsewhere

Adjustments I’ve made haven’t been free or easy, every decision I make for my company is made for the existing staff.

adjustments aren’t unlimited. The woman with her guide dog was my first member of staff, so since she started, any job descriptions going out have said they must be happy working in a shared space with a dog.

same to potential new clients, if someone has a severe dog allergy they would need to go to a different organisation, as we have a working dog on site.

someone shows up having been given a job, despite me making this clear telling me they have a dog allergy would be sent home again.

I have a responsibility first to the people I already employ, this means that our environment has a dog present, I don’t keep it a secret and I can’t figure out any feasible way have someone in our offices that needs it to be animal free.

it's honestly not trolling, and he could also have a desk away from you if it bothered you that much?

But it would have probably already come to the employers attention by employment history or at the interview.

Surely there needs to be a bit of common sense applied. You wouldn't apply to work in a cat cafe, or in a small office where a guide dog is present, if you had a severe pet allergy, surely?

Please tell me she was made redundant

Right, but what you’re actually saying is: you’ve decided upfront that certain disabilities are dealbreakers and that’s not how the law works.
You don’t get to write “must be OK with dogs” on a job description and then pretend it’s sorted. That’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card. If someone with a disability-related allergy applies and is otherwise qualified, you’re still legally obliged to consider whether reasonable adjustments can be made to accommodate them. You can’t just send them packing without even assessing whether their presence and the guide dog’s needs could be balanced. That’s exactly the kind of blanket refusal that gets employers taken to tribunal and losing.
And just to be absolutely clear: refusing to even consider adjustments based on disability is, in itself, unlawful under the Equality Act 2010. The act of blanketly rejecting someone because of a protected characteristic like a medical condition or allergy is immediately discriminatory, before they even walk through the door.
Your “responsibility to your existing staff” doesn’t override the Equality Act. That’s not how it works. You have a responsibility to all your staff, including prospective disabled ones. That means looking at options designated work areas, staggered hours, HEPA filters, remote working, or even discussing whether rotating shifts or alternative roles could work.
You can’t just say, “This is how we do things, take it or leave it.” If that were allowed, guide dog users wouldn’t be employed anywhere, and people with allergies or chronic conditions would be written off on sight. And no, the fact you’ve already made some adjustments doesn’t mean you’ve hit your quota and can ignore everyone else.
Reasonable doesn’t mean “easy for you.” It means proportionate, flexible, and open to assessment. You’ve basically admitted you would reject someone on the spot because of a protected characteristic. That’s not inclusion. That’s discrimination dressed up as policy.
Good intentions don’t matter if the impact is unlawful. If someone challenged you on this, you’d have a hard time defending it. And the more you insist you're right while ignoring what the law actually says, the worse it looks.

Actually, that raises an interesting question.

OP, what would you do if someone with an assistance dog applied to work in your cat cafe? What adjustments would you make?

redundancy isn't the right choice here

But then he would claim he was being discriminated against if he was out in a corner surely? And no I wouldn’t want to see someone walking around barefoot either. Sorry but I think it is revolting in an office environment plus I think it is immensely dangerous for the person in question.

Since I run the cat café, I’ve actually thought about this and the answer is: if someone with an assistance dog applied, I'd be legally required under the Equality Act 2010 to consider whether reasonable adjustments could be made.
That doesn’t mean automatically saying yes or no it means genuinely looking at whether the person could do the job, and whether their dog’s presence could be safely and reasonably managed in the café environment. It might involve separate spaces, adjusted shift times, keeping the dog away from the cats, enhanced cleaning basically, working through practical options rather than just saying “it wouldn’t work.”
You can’t just ban someone because they have an assistance dog that would be direct discrimination, which is illegal. But the law doesn’t expect miracles either it asks for a proper, case-by-case assessment. If, after trying all reasonable options, there’s genuinely no safe or workable way to make it fit, then that’s one thing. But skipping the process or assuming from the start that it's impossible? That’s not how it works and rightly so.
So yes, even in a cat café, you take the request seriously, you think it through properly, and you don’t shut the door before even trying.

Honestly, this is exactly why the Equality Act exists to stop personal discomfort or assumptions from trumping someone’s right to stay in work.
If someone needs to be barefoot for medical reasons (and yes, that is a real thing think neuropathy, chronic pain, open wounds, post-surgery recovery), the employer has a legal duty to consider whether allowing it is a reasonable adjustment. That doesn’t mean throwing health and safety out the window it means doing a proper risk assessment and managing it sensibly. No one’s saying “walk barefoot through a workshop full of nails” we’re talking about low-risk environments where adjustments can be made.
As for sitting away from others no, that’s not discrimination if it’s done to support the person or to balance other staff’s needs. Adjustments are often about compromise. If someone chooses to sit somewhere quieter or more private as part of their support plan, that’s not exclusion that’s accommodation.
And “revolting” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. If someone’s bare feet offend you more than the idea of forcing someone into pain or unemployment, maybe it’s worth thinking about where your line for “immensely dangerous” really sits. Because right now, it’s not aligned with the law or with basic empathy.

Yanbu, a little bit of tolerance and understanding would go very far in society.
There is nearly always a reasonable adjustment option available.
We live in a cut throat society.