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.

I’ve had the surgery now, I waited 2 years so needed adjustments while I was waiting for gynae which is the situation a lot of people are in

ablation isn’t recommended for endometriosis and hysterectomy doesn’t cure it. Excision which I had is gold standard so it’s just waiting to see how long that gives me before it comes back

A 1 year old is more than able to have expressed milk from a cup or a bottle. They would be taking food also so hardly need bf on demand.

My point is if you are going to bf a 1yr old at work most would time it in with at least their own meal breaks rather than have to take it as extra.

Okay I really think OP is trolling us now about the uncle and the £3k charity foot foam.

However on the off chance that it's real, I hope OP will feed back after her next employee requests a reasonable adjustment of walking round the cat cafe barefoot with two guide dogs, refusing to interact with anyone and poking each cat as they pass.

To a point but this would be completely unreasonable. I used to express just before work at 7.30 and then I could go until 3pm when I got home. Your body does adapt to a schedule and certainly by 1 year there is no way a child needed physically breastfeeding 3-4 times a day. At that point expressing milk (and having a place to do it at work to do so if briefly necessary) would have been a reasonable adjustment.

Maybe that new med linzagolox will help? Good luck

I know how often a 1 year old would feed, given I have done this myself.

It doesn't matter what "most" would do, because women are entitled to breastfeed for as long as they would like to and they're entitled to reasonable adjustments such as additional breaks to express or feed their babies.

I had to express or feed my baby directly because despite weaning, he had significant allergies, poor oral motor function which wasn't diagnosed until age 3, and was rapidly losing weight without feeds. None of this was evident at the time, he just seemed like he disliked food so I took my legally entitled breaks to make sure my child would you know... not starve.

Irrespective of any underlying medical conditions, additional feeding or expressing breaks are a perfectly valid reasonable adjustment.

Absolutely not unreasonable and legally expected:

https://www.acas.org.uk/working-when-pregnant-your-rights/breastfeeding-at-work

Link not working

Here you go:

Key points from Acas regarding breastfeeding at work:
Rest Facilities:
Employers must provide a suitable place for employees to rest, which can include a place to lie down.
Expressing and Storage:
While not a legal requirement, it's highly recommended that employers provide a private space (not a toilet) and a fridge for expressing and storing breast milk.
Risk Assessment:
While not mandatory, it's good practice for employers to conduct a risk assessment specifically for breastfeeding employees, especially if there are potential hazards in the workplace.
Flexible Working:
Employees may be able to request flexible working arrangements to accommodate breastfeeding needs.
Redundancy:
Employers cannot make a breastfeeding employee redundant simply because they are breastfeeding or have requested flexible working to support breastfeeding.
Discrimination:
It's unlawful to discriminate against an employee due to breastfeeding, including not providing reasonable support.
Reasonable Adjustments:
Employers should make reasonable adjustments to working conditions to support breastfeeding employees, such as providing breaks for expressing milk.
Suitable Alternative Work:
If the workplace poses risks to the employee or baby, or if work is incompatible with breastfeeding, the employer should offer alternative work on similar terms.
Suspension on Full Pay:
If no suitable alternative work is available, the employer may need to suspend the employee on full pay.

Yes, and that is why many business do not want to employ disabled workers.

Not those that settled could well just be the employer trying to avoid litigation costs rather than any fault on their part.

> You wouldn’t chuck a kid out of school because they struggle with stairs
Sadly, yes, some schools do exactly that (Croydon about four or five years ago)

My best friend recently had to quit a large Spanish-owned high street bank because their new 8-floor HQ building had no means of evacuation for people who couldn't get down four or more flights of stairs, yet he was required to be there two days a week
He asked to work on the ground floor, but that had been leased to a café, so he wasn't allowed
He had been working from home, but they changed their policy, and informed everyone that if they didn't turn up, they had dismissed themselves

It took enormous amounts of time and stress, working with the local fire brigade, and the one H&S officer at the bank who had raised this issue repeatedly to get even a month's pay as compensation for constructive dismissal

The local paper and one of the broadsheets were going to run a story, but the bank threatened the editor that they would withdraw all of the advertising if they did, so it got dropped

BBC were not interested, and a local disability charity said this company were famous for stuff like this - when taken to court for having no evacuation procedures for wheelchairs at another set of offices said, in court, "We're a Spanish company, we don't have to abide by UK laws" !!!
They were fined a pittance, and the compensation they paid to the victimised worker didn't even cover her train fares to and from the court

When a huge multinational like that just ignores the law, and gets away with it, what chance is there a smaller company will see any reason to make the legally required adjustments

Until anyone affected can get together under a single banner and shout from the rooftops, this will continue
And this government has made it clear they despise disabled people, so don't expect any help from that quarter

I myself have adjustments to allow me to work comfortably/ productively, but my concern with what you mentioned about allowing others to do less work is that for most workplaces this will result in others having to do more than their fair share longer term. I will be honest in saying I do mot wish to do that as it will create more stress and challenges for me!!

My comment was on the thread about the front line police officer who was unable to undertake large amounts of front line police duties due to anxiety. You really think we should promote somebody who cannot deal with stressful situations in to a more senior police role, again no doubt with somebody else doing the stressful parts of that role? It's no wonder why public services are in such a state; we don't get the service we pay for and need, and other staff are so stressed they break down or leave.

Yes, all very well, but just about every other person seems to ‘have anxiety’ nowadays. I say this as someone who was often an absolute, ‘bag of nerves’ as my DM used to say, in relatively new or challenging work situations. I’m not talking clinical anxiety here, but the sort of ‘normal’ anxiety most people experience, and mostly just used to learn to brace themselves and get on with it, in the knowledge that it would very likely pass.

This a valid point. Small businesses are struggling and with escalating costs and have to run efficiently or they won't run at all. It's naive to say if their business model can't accommodate everything a disabled person requires they should shut down, because in reality that might well be the result. Then everyone is out of a job, the government has lost the corporation tax take from that business, the PAYE, NI and VAT and the staff are out of a job in an increasingly competitive job market. As is the disabled person. That's not really a win is it. Small businesses do not have deep pockets and where there are many applicants for a job are going take the person best suited to the role. By definition that will be the person who can perform the whole role not just part of it. Putting the costs of any adjustments on them is going to cause a recruitment bias which is the opposite from what everyone wants.

Your analogy with a school child doesn't really work, because schooling has to be provided whereas businesses are run for profit and where there is no profit go into insolvency. An associate's business has just gone under, they couldn't make payroll at the end of the month. That's how precarious the market is at the moment. I'm not sure people who have the luxury of being employed realise just how dire things are.

OP how do you suggest this is made workable in any business other than a large corporation with many staff, role flexibility and deep pockets?

this is the key question!

if there isn't any role then obviously it isn't reasonable

But that’s exactly why these things are assessed on a case-by-case basis no one is saying you should promote someone into a high-risk safety-critical role if they can’t safely or competently do the job. That would not be a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act, and the law doesn’t expect employers to take on risk that could cause harm.
But and this is important there are legal precedents where promoting or redeploying a disabled employee into a higher-paid role has been found reasonable, even if they weren’t the most qualified candidate. The most well-known case is Archibald v Fife Council 2004, where the House of Lords held that the council should have placed a disabled woman into a higher-grade administrative role after she became unable to do her original job without making her reinterview competitively. Why? Because the duty to make reasonable adjustments can include treating a disabled person more favourably than others.
Another example is Southwark v Charles 2014, where a disabled employee was moved to a less stressful role on the same pay, because that was necessary to prevent further health deterioration and it was upheld.
The point is this: reasonable adjustments aren’t about what’s ideal or convenient they’re about removing disadvantage. The law accepts that sometimes this might mean bending the “meritocracy” principle if the adjustment is proportionate, practical, and avoids unfair treatment of a disabled person.
In a role where safety or technical ability is essential, obviously a promotion wouldn’t be reasonable unless the person could actually do the job. But that doesn't give employers a blank cheque to dismiss redeployment out of hand. If there's a suitable vacancy even at a higher grade and the person can perform the core functions with or without adjustments, you’re legally obliged to consider it and if a tribunal disagrees then you have to pay out.

I completely agree with you OP REASONABLE ADJUSTMENTS should be made, however some of your examples are not reasonable adjustments.

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.

I work with small business advisors. In the UK approximately 60% of private sector employment is in small businesses (0-49 employees, and in many cases your private dentist, local garage, shops etc. the number of employees is very much on the lower side of that, in my area there are many small engineering and manufacturing companies, many of which have no more than 20 employees, many multi skilled and doing more than one role within the company). Small businesses are lean by necessity, they do not have the waste, the bureaucracy, the rich shareholders, the buying power or negotiating power of large corporations. They still have to pay a good deal of tax to operate and are therefore contributors to society. They may be excellent companies offering brilliant goods and services, it is not a case of a broken model if they haven't the funds available. I am sure you would be happy to pay more for goods and services, but will everyone, can everyone?

It is a sad fact of the economic climate that their are huge costs on businesses already, and a climate where consumers cannot pay more for goods. So many small business are struggling as it is, and not because they are bad businesses, but because the climate they are working in is hard.

But you're misunderstanding how the law works reasonable adjustments aren’t about treating others “unjustly.” They’re about removing disadvantage so that disabled people can stay in work on equal terms. The Equality Act 2010 explicitly allows for more favourable treatment of disabled people when it’s necessary to level the playing field.
You don’t get to demand rigid fairness in every scenario when someone’s health or ability has been compromised. If a disabled person can't do their old job but can do another role, the law expects the employer to support that move even if it wouldn’t happen for a non-disabled person.
That’s not injustice. That’s equity. And frankly, if someone sees a colleague with a disability get support they need to stay in work and thinks they’ve been wronged, they’ve missed the entire point of inclusion.

No, I don’t “just mean hire more people” I mean that employers have a legal duty to manage workloads fairly and make reasonable adjustments for disabled staff under the Equality Act 2010. If someone needs shorter hours or regular breaks due to a long-term condition, the employer can’t just ignore it because it’s inconvenient. They need to restructure roles, rebalance workloads, or adjust expectations and yes, if necessary, they may need to bring in more support.
If work is being unfairly dumped on colleagues, that’s not the fault of the disabled employee that’s a management failure. It means the employer hasn’t planned properly, resourced properly, or thought creatively. Blaming the person who needed the adjustment is like blaming someone in a wheelchair because the lift’s broken and everyone has to take the stairs.
And let’s be honest “the others want to quit” is often code for “we don’t like that someone else got flexibility we didn’t.” But the law doesn’t require equal treatment it requires equitable treatment, which means some people may need different support to be on a level playing field.
Workload issues should be solved with better planning, not by punishing disabled staff for needing adjustments they’re legally entitled to.

There is very little there that says employees are required to do anything. The only ‘must’ is a place for employers to rest, must not discriminate and must be safe.

In terms of ‘reasonable adjustment’ under the Equality Act only applies to disability.

Appreciate you coming back after reading more but I’m going to push back firmly here, because what you’re describing just isn’t what the Equality Act 2010 says or how tribunals have interpreted it.
Reasonable adjustments like reduced workload, flexible hours, or changes in duties do not automatically mean a reduction in pay. That’s not how it works. In fact, in many cases, reducing someone’s pay because of their disability or the adjustments they require can be unlawful it risks amounting to discrimination arising from disability under Section 15 of the Act.
The idea that “less work = less pay” might feel fair from a business logic point of view, but the law operates from a human rights and anti-discrimination framework, not just economics. The whole point of adjustments is to remove disadvantage, not punish people for needing support to keep their jobs.
There’s also case law backing this. In Southwark v Charles 2014, the tribunal upheld that an employee moved to a less stressful role on the same pay was a valid reasonable adjustment. And in Archibald v Fife Council 2004, a disabled woman was entitled to be moved into a more senior role without competitive interview because it was a suitable alternative after she could no longer do her original job.
And saying a psychologist who becomes “triggered” should just be out of the profession is harsh and, frankly, oversimplified. If someone experiences trauma or mental health issues as a result of doing their job, the right response isn’t to toss them aside it’s to look at how their work could be adjusted or whether a different role could be offered. That’s the exact purpose of redeployment, which is a recognised reasonable adjustment under the law.
As for your experience I’m sorry you were treated that way. That sounds like classic tokenism: offer something short-term and then push you out when it’s convenient. But just because they made you redundant doesn’t mean it was fair or lawful. A lot of discrimination is dressed up as “business need” and that’s why we have tribunals.
Businesses aren’t charities, no. But they’re not above the law either. Inclusion is not optional, and disabled workers shouldn’t have to trade dignity or income just to stay employed.

no need to be toxic towards my families disabilities!

yes, in some businesses client-facing work is more highly valued. But legally, that still doesn’t override the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
If someone becomes disabled or their condition worsens and they can no longer do certain tasks (like client meetings), the employer can’t just say, “Well that’s the core of the job, goodbye.” They’re legally required to explore whether the role can be adjusted by reassigning tasks, redistributing work, or even redeploying the person into a different role. And no, that doesn’t automatically mean reducing their pay. The law is very clear that penalising someone financially for needing adjustments can be unlawful particularly if the person is still doing valuable work, even if it looks different.
And let’s be honest: admin tasks don’t do themselves. People like to act like they’re lesser, but the truth is every team needs that support to function. If someone can no longer do external meetings but takes on core internal tasks to keep the team running smoothly, that’s not “less valuable” it’s different value.
Plus, this idea that roles and job grades are immovable is just not true in practice. Roles evolve. Work is constantly redistributed when staff go on maternity leave, secondments, or cover absences. Funny how it’s only when it involves a disabled person that suddenly the entire business model becomes inflexible.
So yes maybe that person ends up in a different role. But maybe the role itself evolves with them, which happens all the time in good teams with decent management. The law expects effort and creativity not “well that’s not what we usually do.”

Right, but what you’re describing there isn’t “getting smart” it’s weaponising fake self-diagnosis to undermine legitimate disability rights, and it absolutely is cheeky fuckery, just not in the clever way you think.
If a team is unhappy that a disabled colleague has reasonable adjustments the legal bare minimum to stop them being driven out of work the solution isn’t to gang up, play dress-up as neurodivergent, and throw a tantrum about “fairness.” The solution is to speak to management about workload planning and proper resourcing. Because if one person’s adjustment is genuinely overloading others, that’s not the disabled person’s fault it’s bad management, plain and simple.
And let’s be clear: the Equality Act 2010 allows for disabled people to be treated more favourably than non-disabled people where necessary. That’s not a loophole it’s literally the law. Reasonable adjustments are not perks. They’re not special treatment. They’re legal protection against being pushed out of the workplace for having needs that others don’t.
If the rest of the team “demands the same adjustments” without any qualifying condition, that’s not levelling the playing field that’s trying to break it. It’s disrespectful to disabled people, and it shows exactly why we need the law: because too many people still treat inclusion like a threat to their ego instead of a basic right.
So no, it’s not clever. It’s not funny. And it’s definitely not legal.

I think it's important to realise that not everyone can do everything. Some people are held back by IQ (and can't be in some high-flying analytical career), some people are held back by fear of heights (can't be a roofer if you can't go up scaffolding), some people are held back by physical limitations (can't be a dancer if you've got really bad arthritis). Some people are held back by autism or anxiety and wouldn't be suited to some roles, but might be very suited to others.

Why should autism be allowed accommodations but not other limitations?

Generally I think it's up to individuals to find a job that suits us rather than up to employers to completely change a job to match our abilities. I especially disagree with your point about giving someone a lower-level job but at a higher pay.

I do acknowledge it's the law though. I just think the law is unfair and I don't blame employers for trying to avoid all the accommodations you listed.