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 completely get why that’s frustrating but the problem here isn’t the disabled employees, it’s your employer failing everyone.
If someone can’t do certain tasks or needs extra breaks because of a mental health condition, then they’re entitled to reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. That’s the law. But it also means your employer has a legal duty to make sure those adjustments don’t unfairly overload everyone else. That’s part of what makes the adjustments reasonable they need to work for everyone, and that includes resourcing the team properly.
What you’re describing no cover, no support, no planning, and people missing lunch after a 7:30am start isn’t inclusion gone too far. It’s just bad management and chronic understaffing being blamed on the people least able to defend themselves.
The anger should be aimed upward, not sideways. Disabled staff aren’t getting a cushy deal they’re getting just enough to stay in the job without breaking down. If that ends up making life harder for the rest of the team, that’s a failure of leadership, not adjustment policy.
Your employer has obligations to the whole team. If they’re not meeting them, it’s not because of disability rights it’s because they’re cutting corners. And that’s exactly the kind of situation where someone should be taking it further not just to HR, but to a union, ACAS, or a tribunal. Because no one disabled or not should be working through lunch every day because management can’t be bothered to hire enough staff.

how am I trolling?

Employers should make reasonable adjustments to working conditions to support breastfeeding employees, such as providing breaks for expressing milk.

To me this is a rights /responsibility issue. Firstly the world of work and the capitalist system could do with a total overhaul making it less onerous and us less of cogs in a machine !

Until then we are left with a system in which we need to manage . We all have rights and a collective responsibility to each other . So of course we should support all to work in a role best suited to them .

However we all have responsibilities and sometimes we need to deal with stuff we don’t like that stresses us that’s part of work ( unfortunately) . Also as an adult with ADHD , I’m a grown up with rights and responsibilities just like everyone else and it’s up to me to look for a job that best meets my needs and let’s not forget as an adult with a disability I also have strengths .

I have gone into a type of shorter term project management turning round organisations that need support . I’m really good at it , took a while to find this . Is it perfect no ,to me all jobs are boring and repetitive tasks mind numbing but I can handle it . I’m 50, I’m not entitled to have a life free of stress and challenge .I’m supportive to those who need it finding their strengths so they can be part of the team in a real way .

If we operated in a more collective way in that we were all entitled to support when we need it but recognise the rights of others and our responsibility in this it would be a naturally more egalitarian and kinder workplace .

I get why it’s annoying when someone applies for a job knowing events are part of it and then later says they can’t do them. But the legal reality is, under the Equality Act 2010, if someone has a disability and yes, that includes long-term mental health conditions like anxiety then the employer has a duty to consider reasonable adjustments. It’s not optional, and it’s not about what’s convenient.
That doesn’t mean you have to completely remove a major part of someone’s role straight away. But it does mean the employer should look properly at whether the job could be tweaked maybe they only do some events, or they take on more behind-the-scenes prep instead of being front-facing. Maybe it’s temporary while they get support or treatment. Maybe it’s a job-share setup. There are options, but they need to be explored, not dismissed out of hand.
And yes, if it turns out there’s no way to make the events part work and it really is an essential part of the job then it might end in redeployment or even them moving on. But that has to come after the employer has actually tried to find a solution. The law doesn’t let you say, “Well this is the job, take it or leave it,” if someone’s at a disadvantage due to a disability.
So to answer your question: no, they don’t automatically have to leave. But if adjustments aren’t possible after proper consideration, then maybe that is the outcome. It just has to be done fairly and legally not based on frustration or office gossip.

running a small business isn’t easy, margins are tight, and big company HR policies don’t always translate. But once you’re an employer, whether you’ve got 3 staff or 300, you still take on the legal duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. That’s not optional it’s the law.
No one’s saying you have to keep someone on full pay to do nothing, or magically invent a second salary overnight. What the law asks is that you make a genuine effort to explore what’s possible including task reallocation, flexible hours, phased returns, or redeployment where feasible. If there’s no way to make it work after trying, that’s one thing. But refusing to try because it’s difficult or unpopular with the rest of the team isn’t a defence it’s a risk.
The frustration from staff is understandable of course people notice when workloads feel unequal. But that’s not the disabled colleague’s fault. That’s on the employer to manage resourcing and team dynamics properly. If staff are being made to “lump it” without support or explanation, that’s a management problem, not an adjustment problem.
And to be honest, it’s good to hear that you’ve got two disabled employees already but that doesn’t mean you’ve hit your quota and can’t be challenged. Every new situation is judged on its own facts. Fairness doesn’t mean “equal for everyone” it means recognising when someone needs different support just to stay in the job.
Small business or not, if you’re employing people, you’re expected to balance inclusion, business need, and legal compliance. That’s just part of the deal.

he gets the bus barefoot

And this is why small employers are deciding it's not worth the hassle anymore and why jobs are being lost (and not replaced).

I agree that reasonable adjustments should be made but some of these are not reasonable and are frankly crazy! Lets run through:

Redeploying someone to a different role if their original job can’t be adjusted Absolutely this is very reasonable and should be the absolute base level

Promoting or transferring them to a better-suited role, even if that role comes with higher pay or more opportunities, if it helps remove a barrier Absolutely not, promotion should be done on the basis of who is the best fit for the role. Are you honestly saying that a company should promote someone with a disability because it will make their life easier rather than promote the person who is the best at their job and would be the best in the promoted role? Forcing companies to promote the wrong person is a horrendous idea!

Reassigning certain duties or tasks, even if this means the person is doing less than others While I can see the reasoning behind this again its just not a practical option, people are paid a salary to do a certain level of work, if someone is unable to perform at that level for whatever reason they should not be paid the same as other people. What happens when one able colleague is fired for poor performance and a disabled colleague is kept on despite doing less work?

Reducing workload or output targets, such as call volumes or deadlines See above

Allowing home working, even if the original role was office-based Absolutely should be able to do this.

Offering a less senior or less stressful position but keeping the original pay, if it prevents the person from being pushed out entirely Again this is an awful idea, you cant pay someone extra money for a lower job no matter why they need it.

Ultimately if your suggestions were to be implemented I can assure you that they would result in companies never hiring anyone who may have a disability again, why would you knowingly hire someone who is legally allowed to perform at a level you would fire other staff for?

If you then tried to put in quotas for companies needing to have a certain % of staff with extra needs it would result in them only being hired into the most junior positions. Why would you hire a £100k a year Software Engineer who is only performing at 70% of the level you expect (costing you £30k a year) when you could hire a £25k a year cleaner who performs at 70% (costing you £7500 a year)

they’re not being “promoted” as a reward. They’re being redeployed as a reasonable adjustment because they’ve become disabled and can no longer do their original role. It’s not a pat on the back it’s a way of keeping someone in employment rather than forcing them out through no fault of their own.
This is backed by actual case law, not opinion. In Archibald v Fife Council, the House of Lords ruled that the council should have placed a disabled woman into a more senior admin role without a competitive interview, because it was the only way to keep her in work. She had become physically unable to do her lower-paid role after surgery. The employer refused to redeploy her and lost in court. The ruling was clear: treating disabled people more favourably is not only allowed, it can be required.
This isn’t about someone skipping the queue or being handed an easy ride. It’s about acknowledging that sometimes equality means adjusting the rules to give someone a fair shot especially when the alternative is them losing their income entirely.
The country isn’t “going down the toilet” because we’re making space for disabled people in the workplace. It’s going down the toilet when people act like basic inclusion is some kind of scandal.

You talk about qualifying conditions, but also acknowledged earlier that your family is largely self diagnosed. That’s exactly the issue.

Anyone could come to my office, tell me they’ve got a self diagnosed issue, and then ask for adjustments for something that I’ve got no evidence of, based on their say so. Forgive me for stating the obvious, I’d like a medical opinion before I start accommodating things.

There is a wave of people at the moment diagnosing themselves with autism or ADHD, via social media and largely Google. My Instagram is full of people claiming their neurodiversity with absolutely no formal diagnosis of having ever even encountered a doctor to find out if they do have it. Their diagnosis is not the same as someone who has followed the medical process, and we can’t accommodate for it in the same way.

Employers haven’t failed in their staff planning, by not accounting for problems that they don’t know their team have, or problems that their team have diagnosed themselves.

You say no one asked for WFH before Covid but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t needed. It means the culture didn’t allow it, and people were too afraid to ask. Covid proved that remote work was not only possible but often better for productivity and wellbeing, especially for disabled and chronically ill people. That shift matters and tribunals are now recognising that refusing WFH without proper justification can be discriminatory.
As for the barefoot comment this comes up a lot, but again, the Equality Act 2010 is clear: if someone has a disability that makes footwear painful or medically harmful then going barefoot might be a reasonable adjustment. That doesn’t mean anything goes. It means the employer must do a risk assessment, consider alternatives (clean soft flooring, designated desk area, etc.), and act accordingly.
No, you don’t just let someone wander into a warehouse barefoot. But in an office? With a proper assessment and safe setup? It’s entirely manageable and absolutely not illegal.
And no asking for a medically necessary adjustment is not the same as being “ridiculous.” What is ridiculous is suggesting that basic inclusion is somehow threatening just because it challenges what feels “normal” to you. The law doesn't prioritise your personal squeamishness over someone else’s right to work without pain.

Should not must.

what points exactly?

This is also why we may end up with Farage who will get rid of many of these laws.
i am now retired but over the years I have worked with disabled people and bar 1 case they have all pulled their weight.
OP keeps going on about redistributing workload, rearranging, reassigning etc,
but it all boils down to other people doing extra work. Small business can’t just invent a different role for someone or take on extra staff to cover for someone who is not doing 100%.

Exactly. Reform are already running my local council. My boss and our accountant are all incandescent about things Starmer is doing. I disagree with their viewpoint but it is the fact that things have gone way too far and businesses ar closing and there are no jobs that people are turning to the extreme parties.

All examples OP gave that courts have found are context specific. None of them may be ‘reasonable adjustments’ within another context.

This is the thing though. We all know it’s the employers. Ours is a huge multi million pound company yet claims they can’t afford to hire more staff.

So the rest of us pick up the slack or risk loosing our jobs, often burnt out from carrying the extra while watching those with reasonable adjustments take them. That’s there the frustration comes from.

We can tell management to hire more staff, but if they can’t afford them or won’t employ them then it’s a case of everyone suck it up.

yes, sometimes adjustments mean people do different work or less of it. That’s not a flaw in the system; it’s literally the point. If someone’s condition means they can’t do a task without harm, the law expects employers to remove the barrier, not ignore it to keep things “fair.” That’s not injustice. That’s inclusion.
The idea that staff faked illness or "joined in" because they saw others getting adjustments is a massive oversimplification. If multiple people are burning out, maybe the issue isn’t who’s doing less maybe it’s that the baseline workload is unreasonable to begin with. A toxic culture that blames disabled people for poor resourcing or poor management isn’t a disability issue it’s a leadership one.
And no you can’t legally screen people at interview for whether they’ll “cope” without adjustments. That’s been unlawful since the Equality Act came in. You can ask if they need support at interview stage or during the role but filtering out people because they might have access needs is discrimination, full stop.
So yes, managing adjustments takes effort. That’s part of being a manager. But let’s be clear the law isn’t the problem here. A system where people are punished for being unwell, unsupported when struggling, and resented by colleagues for existing differently? That’s the real issue. And it’s not solved by tightening access it’s solved by creating properly staffed, compassionate, and well-led workplaces.

I do see both sides. My husband suffered genuine disability discrimination at work for both a physical condition and a ND one. He was extremely capable of fulfilling his job role (and still does so for a different organisation now to great success) but toxic management bullied him out.

But the definition of reasonable needs looking at.

It’s not a “promotion” as a reward it’s a reasonable adjustment to keep a disabled person in employment after their original role becomes unsuitable due to disability. It’s not about climbing the ladder faster than others it’s about avoiding being pushed off it completely.
You don’t get to demand that every career move be earned in the exact same way when the entire point is correcting systemic inequality. If someone has lost the ability to do their job through no fault of their own, and there's a suitable vacancy they can do, the employer has a duty to consider them for it even if others might be more “deserving” in your eyes.
If your idea of fairness is “treat everyone the same no matter their barriers,” then it’s not really fairness it’s gatekeeping. This country isn’t “going down the toilet” because we make space for disabled people. It goes down the toilet when we let resentment replace basic empathy and lawful inclusion.

Multimillion pound companies can still make huge losses and go insolvent. Being large does not mean having spare cash. And even what seem like ‘huge’ profits can be tiny when considered in terms of cash invested.

it's not a troll, please don't be toxic.

You don’t get to demand that every career move be earned in the exact same way when the entire point is correcting systemic inequality.

That is not the entire point of running a business though.

No need to operate scam scheme.

It seems that all of you self diagnosed autism and whatnot, apply for jobs you knowingly cannot do, then disclose whatever conditions to a new employer and demand adjustments until said employer can't deliver anymore and then take them to tribunal and demand to anonymise you. And make living out of it.

It's people like you make society doubt disabilities. Those who were really supportive and understanding will become very suspicious after reading your posts.

The first step to heal here is to remove the option of self diagnosis, both for PIP and adjustments. I'm sure this will change dynamic dramatically and for the better, there won't be ridiculous situations described on this thread.