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.

Some of your examples are completely unreasonable. You can’t pay someone the same salary if they are re-deployed to a less senior position.

You don’t sound rude at all you’re right that both of you were let down. But that’s on management, not on her or you. If an employer agrees to adjustments that involve changing someone’s workload, they’re also responsible for making sure the team can cope whether that means hiring extra support, reducing overall targets, or rebalancing responsibilities fairly.
And yes, legally they can reassign some of her duties to others if that’s part of a reasonable adjustment. But they’re still expected to manage the impact just handing it to one person with no training or recognition isn’t acceptable. That’s bad management, not bad law.

DD is disabled. Despite reasonable adjustments, there are some jobs she should not do as it would be to the detriment of others.
I am in a school - OH do assessments (which we ask for in order to support a member of staff) but often it comes back that the adjustment for an LSA is to move to an office based role, which we cannot accommodate. There needs to be more understanding and accommodation on the role of the employer and sometimes acceptance of the employee that the adjustment to the role means the role is completely changed, which is not always viable.

I know this is a different situation as its not in an actual job (yet) and it’s not an actual disability but I remember when I was working in a dental hospital one of the new trainee hygienists let the tutors know she got really panicked around blood and would often faint. This woman had done the 3 months of lectures and only told the tutors when she was due to start treating patients she couldn’t deal with blood and was asking what she should do to avoid seeing blood. A hygienists job is pretty much ALL dealing with blood ALL day!! Apparently in the lectures when being shown pictures of blood or anything a bit gory she’d been closing her eyes or looking away! So instead of realising quickly this job wasn’t for her she stuck out 3 months of lectures (while closing her eyes) and waited until no one else could take her place on the course to ask the tutors if there was a way to continue but without seeing blood. Obviously there was not and she left the course.

I don't think it's necessarily straightforward, because some adjustments would potentially mean not actually being able to do the job properly.

That’s a pretty unpleasant take, and thankfully not how the law works or how Employment Tribunals make decisions. Good thing you’re not an ET judge, because this kind of blanket stereotyping would never fly in a legal setting.
Reasonable adjustments are based on medical evidence, legal principles, and a person’s actual needs not casual assumptions about laziness or nationality. Comparing people’s worth based on where they’re from isn’t just offensive, it’s completely irrelevant to someone’s legal right to work with support if they’re disabled.

and in this case redeployment to another role could be the adjustment

And if another role isn't available? Majority of businesses in UK are SMEs

Are you talking about a job role that’s changed or a new job? You can’t expect someone to employ someone they’re not suitable for such as the dental hygienist example above.

I don't really understand what you want from this thread. It sounds like you know the law better than us, so I don't doubt you're right.

But also, by the sounds of it, if that law started being enforced as you seem to hope it would, it sounds like it would end up being repealed by Parliament because I don't think at all there would be a societal willingness to go that far. I think a majority of people would believe that it won't work.

Are you asking "is this the law?", "should the law be enforced?" or "do you people believe this should be the law?".

Would have improved efficiency for everyone surely, if they'd just bought/leased a photocopier for your floor?

YANBU OP. I think that there’s lots of disabled people not in work because employers aren’t welcoming particularly if there’s large gaps in the CV due to ill health. The onus is on disabled people to get off benefits and into work but the support to do that just isn’t there, I don’t think

YADNBU. The infrastructure just is not there.

On another thread, a lot of people were turning their noses up at adjustments like allowing short breaks between tasks or letting someone step away when overwhelmed things often needed by people with conditions like autism, anxiety,

Ah, how did I guess it was autism. Regula breaks away from work because of overwhelm, whilst everybody picks up the slack. Nice try

Edited to say, my partner is autistic, and he's the only one on record who has never had a single sick day. All the other neurotypical, people very different story. You're doing yourselves, no favors with this kind of thing. Wanting special treatment for it.

I think you’re missing the point here. People aren’t disputing what the law says. They’re saying that the law is annoying and wrong.

I don’t agree with ableist discrimination. But I don’t think the solution to any kind of discrimination is further discrimination. Reasonable adjustments should be made to level the playing field. But as soon as the playing field becomes unfair to non-disabled people in order to facilitate the participation of disabled people, that’s not a solution to a problem. It’s just replacing one problem with a different problem.

If there genuinely is no way to make reasonable adjustments and no suitable alternative role available, then yes in some cases, dismissal may be lawful. But that’s a high threshold, and too often employers don’t explore all the options before jumping to that stage.
Personally, whenever I know someone who’s been dismissed under those circumstances, I always encourage them to consider an employment tribunal. It’s free to bring a claim, and if the judge rules in their favour, they may receive compensation sometimes substantial. If more disabled people stood up for their rights this way, it would absolutely push more employers to take adjustments seriously from the start.

In my immediate family alone, we’ve been through 9 employment tribunal cases 3 were settled before the hearing, and 3 were upheld by the tribunal. Only one didn’t go all the way. And among friends and extended family, I’ve helped with the paperwork or prep for at least 15 more cases. Out of those, I think around 5 settled early and 2 were lost but the rest either succeeded or led to improved terms before hearing.
To me, that suggests a real pattern: too many employers jump straight to dismissal or ignore their legal duties, assuming people won’t push back. But when disabled employees do challenge it, they often win because the law is clear, and too many employers still gamble on people not knowing their rights.

yes but if the person has mobility issues surely getting their printing if they need it is common courtesy

And again, what's the financial cost to the company? Small business simply don't have the money to accommodate all RAs.

Unfortunately until there’s some kind of fund that employers can access to offset the costs of the adjustments then this will continue to be an issue.

If I can employ 1 able bodied person to do a job that might need 1.5 disabled people once the adjustments were factored in it just won’t add up commercially. And ultimately that’s how society is currently set up.

And if something like this already exists then it needs better promotion!

Autism is a spectrum, and people experience it in very different ways. Just because your partner doesn’t need any adjustments doesn’t mean others don’t or that they’re asking for “special treatment.” For many autistic people, things like short breaks or a quiet space aren’t a luxury they’re what make it possible to stay regulated and keep doing their job.
The law doesn’t require everyone to be treated the same — it requires people to be treated fairly, which means recognising and removing barriers where they exist. Reasonable adjustments aren’t about getting out of work they’re about staying in it.

Their are government access to work funds for this.

But businesses are required to fund some adjustments, if they don't like it they shouldn't operate in England!