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 can just picture it

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…..should it be allowed reasonable adjustments to allow for the fact it can’t keep up with the geese?

Come now. You can see what they are. But as you’re playing dumb I’ll restate them.

Is it reasonable for an employer to expose themselves to litigation for a barefoot employee to sue them for a workplace accident due to them insisting on being barefoot?

Is it reasonable for an employer to have to risk their entire business, including the jobs of their employees, to create a new, unnecessary (in business terms) role + salary, NI, benefits etc, to provide a role for someone unsuited to the position on offer?

On the very first page someone working at a private dental surgery pointed out that they only needed a receptionist - not a receptionist (an essential role) AND some kind of admin assistant (entirely unnecessary in business terms).

I don’t disagree that small businesses are under huge pressure but legal duties don’t disappear just because things are tight. That’s the reality of being an employer in the UK: if you hire people, you take on legal responsibilities, including the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
And “reasonable” already takes into account the size and resources of the business. No one’s saying every local garage needs to fund a full-time carer or build a lift. But it does mean thinking creatively, showing willing, and not blanket-refusing someone just because they might need flexibility, a stool to sit on, or a phased return.
If a business truly can’t flex in any way if it’s so lean that even minor adjustments aren’t possible then yes, I stand by what I said: that’s not a sustainable model for employing people responsibly. It doesn’t mean they’re evil or don’t try hard. It means they’re not set up in a way that meets basic workplace standards for inclusion. That’s a problem. Not just legally ethically too.
And let’s be real the overwhelming majority of adjustments cost very little or nothing at all. It’s not about gold-plated solutions. It’s about communication, flexibility, and doing the bare minimum so that disabled people don’t keep getting excluded.
I get that it’s hard out there. But disabled people live in that same economic climate too often while also dealing with structural barriers that make work and income harder to access in the first place. If we’re not willing to even try to include them, what message does that send?
So yes I do believe a model that only works for the non-disabled and fully fit is broken. Because that’s not how a fair society functions.

Yes. Should. Employers should follow health and safety law (management of health and safety at work regulations 1999):

If an employee notifies their employer in writing that they’re breastfeeding, the employer is legally required to assess the risks and take appropriate steps — which often must include breaks to express milk and a suitable place to do so.

HSE official guidance (not just ACAS):

You must provide a suitable area where pregnant workers and breastfeeding mothers can rest. It should:
• include somewhere to lie down if necessary
• be hygienic and private so they can express milk if they choose to – toilets are not a suitable place for this
• include somewhere to store their milk, for example a fridge

The management of H&S at work 1999 legislation also requires employers to assess workplace risks for new and expectant mothers and take action to reduce or eliminate significant risks.

This can be risks to themselves, such as mastitis, abscesses, sepsis etc.

So while ACAS is not the law their guidance has been used in tribunals to determine whether an employers action or inaction is reasonable or unreasonable amount to sex or indirect sex discrimination.

(McFarlane very easyjet) in 2016 easyjet refused cabin crews request to alter shift length/additional breaks to express milk.
The tribunal rules that employers must:
Consider more frequent breaks or adjusted hours as part of risk assessment and accommodating breastfeeding needs.

The refusal was deemed indirect sex discrimination.

This makes it clear that failure to offer additional breaks or shift modifications can be unlawful.

Ultimately if a business refuses the request without solid business reasons for doing so then they are breaching their duty of care under health and safety and can land themselves in legal trouble for doing so.

Happy to answer — but let’s keep it real, because you’re mixing up legal obligations with worst-case exaggerations.
Barefoot in the workplace: Believe it or not, this isn’t automatically illegal or a “health and safety nightmare.” If someone has a legitimate medical need (say, chronic foot pain, skin disorders, post-op recovery, etc.), then under the Equality Act 2010, going barefoot might be a reasonable adjustment. That doesn’t mean they get to wander through a warehouse or kitchen it means the employer should do a proper risk assessment and see if it’s manageable in context (e.g. soft flooring, safe zones,). If that’s done and the risk is low, there’s nothing illegal about it.
You don’t get sued just because someone was barefoot. You get sued if you refuse an adjustment without considering it, or don’t manage risk properly. There’s a big difference.
Creating a whole new job out of nothing: No, the law doesn’t require an employer to invent pointless roles with full salary, benefits, and no value just to keep someone around. The duty is to make reasonable adjustments, not impossible ones. If there’s genuinely no way to redeploy someone or adapt the job to fit their capacity, and no suitable vacancies available, then yes that can be the end of the road. The Equality Act isn’t a blank cheque.
But that’s not what usually happens. What usually happens is employers don’t bother considering adjustments at all, or they shut the conversation down without trying and that’s what gets them taken to tribunal.
The dental receptionist WFH example: Totally agree with you on that one. A front-desk, patient-facing role in a private clinic? Working from home in that context isn’t a reasonable adjustment it goes against the essential nature of the job. If someone develops a condition that makes them unable to carry out core, in-person duties, and no remote or admin alternative exists within the company, then redeployment might be explored but the employer would be well within their rights to say that WFH just isn’t feasible in that scenario. That’s how the law works it’s not about doing the impossible, it’s about doing what's proportionate and fair.
Bottom line: the law already balances this stuff. It doesn’t expect businesses to fold to keep one person happy. But it does expect employers to take disability seriously, think creatively, and not reject people out of fear, assumption, or office politics. If that’s too much to ask, maybe don’t hire people.

absalutely!

what are you on about?

Sorry for derailing your thread OP with maternity related issues but really grinds my gears.

As does the rampant ableism!

As I stated, should is not must. It the law does not say must then they do not have to do it. So you are wrong to state they should follow health and safety law - they MUST follow health and safety law.

They MUST provide a rest place, it SHOULD (but does not have to) include somewhere to store milk.

'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'

Oh it's life at work. There are not infinite funds to bring in extra staff just so someone can have a life down for half an hour or decompress and pass on their workload.

People with actual disabilities need adaptions in order to enable them to do their job effectively they do not need babying.

For someone so hot on the law, you really need to get to grips with the difference between should and must.

You're missing the point and the legal nuance.

You're right that not every individual provision is framed with “must”, but that doesn’t mean employers have free rein to ignore breastfeeding needs.

What employers must do under health & safety law:

Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, if an employee notifies their employer in writing that they are breastfeeding, the employer must:

Conduct a specific risk assessment

Take steps to remove or reduce those risks

Failure to do so is a breach of legal duty and that’s where the need for breaks to express comes in. If the risk assessment identifies that not expressing could cause engorgement, blocked ducts, or mastitis, and the employer refuses breaks, they’re in breach of the law even if the word "break" isn’t used in isolation.

Plus, case law backs this up:

In McFarlane v easyJet (2016), an employer refusing adjustments to allow breaks for expressing was found to have committed indirect sex discrimination.
Tribunals do consider lack of breaks or lack of privacy and dignity as legally actionable.

So while “should” appears in guidance like ACAS or HSE in isolation, the employer's obligation to act on identified health risks is legally binding. If expressing is medically necessary, breaks become part of that legal duty.

This isn’t about splitting hairs over modal verbs. It’s about understanding how the law actually works in practice, and yes, in practice, employers must accommodate breastfeeding needs.

no worries, I just wish employers would be more sympathetic to all

My experience is all Civil Service and Local Authority so yes, people get redeployed/adjusted but it's always at the expense of colleagues because of bad management.

Before I had children, I worked for a LA Homeless team. At interview, my case load was going to be 30. I started work with 64 (plus 1 which wasn't actually on my list). That was a reasonable adjustment apparently. Whilst not everyone had additional issues or required support, those with some form of addiction/fleeing domestic violence/mental health issues/just out of prison/small children made up at least 70 percent of said case load so at points I was working 10 plus hour days.

Then another colleague decided she could no longer cope with attending meetings with other professionals. So our boss attempted to reassign those. Nothing makes me feel rubbish like having five mins warning about a meeting and having to try and read the case file during the introductions.

So we started to pay attention and ensure we weren't in the office (previous pattern was home visits in morning/office hours afternoon) to be randomly sent off to potentially look like idiots in front of social work/police/teachers etc. Obviously it all came to ahead because someone had to attend from our department and it got messy. I'm not sure what a reasonable adjustment to that particular aspect would have actually been as sending someone who didn't know the case, certainly wasn't it.

I definitely don't think self diagnosis should count either. If you're struggling enough to need adjustments, you should want to pursue a formal diagnosis.

I feel like an utter fool. I'm in the public sector and off work due to burnout. I reduced my hours to manage my wellbeing as management wouldn't help me. I shouldn't have had to do that.

That sounds like a really tough and badly managed situation, and I completely get the frustration but the real issue here isn’t the person needing adjustments. It’s management not resourcing things properly or planning support fairly.
When someone in a high-pressure role like housing or homelessness needs an adjustment like avoiding multi-agency meetings it’s up to management to handle that with care, not just chuck the burden at whoever happens to be in the office. Dumping tasks on others with no warning is not what the Equality Act expects. If an adjustment creates extra workload, the employer is supposed to balance that fairly, not quietly punish the rest of the team and then blame the person needing support when things go wrong.
And on the self-diagnosis point I hear that view a lot, but it’s not that simple. Access to diagnosis in this country is a postcode lottery, and NHS wait times for conditions like autism, ADHD, and even chronic illnesses are often years long. Some people can’t afford private assessments, or they’re actively traumatised by medical systems. That doesn’t mean they aren’t struggling. That doesn’t mean they’re lying. It means the system is broken not the person.
That’s why the Equality Act 2010 doesn’t require a formal diagnosis. It protects people based on functional impact, not just paperwork. Employers and Occupational Health can still ask questions and assess what’s reasonable it’s not a free pass but self-identifying isn’t just allowed, it’s sometimes the only option.
If we gatekeep support until someone’s got a 5-year-old consultant’s letter, we’re not protecting workplaces we’re just making sure people suffer longer than they need to.

It is very much not splitting hairs to distinguish should from must in the law. They are very different.

I also said they must not discriminate.

I know the difference, however if an employer doesn't make these adjustments I would encourage an employee to go to a tribunal and try get paid!

And they do. Surely these breaks can be tied in with lunch breaks and coffee breaks rather than having a whole other set of bf breaks.

Regarding my example do you seriously think a 1yr old needs bringing in to work so a person in an extremely busy department can leave the area and bf? Having just had a lunch break?

Some people sadly take the piss and it causes bad feeling so those wirh genuine issues who need adjustments and support feel awkward and pressured.

I bet you would.

OP, you talk a lot about fairness, but life isn't fair. We can try to aim for equal opportunities but we can never actually make everyone equal.

If I try to run a race against Usain Bolt, I'm going to lose. I'm not physically or mentally capable of becoming an Olympic athlete. Almost no one is.

We can't expect to be given a head start, run a shorter race, be allowed an electric scooter for part of it, and then be declared the winner and get the prize money at the end.

We should all expect to be given the same opportunity to try - so access to education, dismantling of racism/sexism etc, a standardised interview process - but some people will inevitably be better at a specific role than others.

I also truly don't see why some conditions such as autism supposedly deserve all these accomodations but other conditions don't. We're all born differently.

The body I'm in means I can never be a model or an athlete. I get quite easily stressed so I can't be in a very high pressure role. I'm also quite clumsy so couldn't be a waitress or any role requiring much dexterity.

With those limitations in mind, I've chosen jobs that match my strengths and where I can contribute. It's win-win for both me and my employer

Employers do not need to accept self-diagnosis, any more than self-certification beyond a set period. But they may need to pay for private assessment

You're right that "must" and "should" aren't the same in law but when “should” appears in ACAS or HSE guidance, it reflects what employers are expected to do to meet their legal duties under health & safety law.

If a risk assessment identifies that not expressing could cause harm (like mastitis), and the employer refuses to allow breaks, that becomes a legal breach regardless of whether the word "must" appears in that specific line.

Plus, tribunals like McFarlane v easyJet have already ruled that denying time to express can be indirect sex discrimination. So yes employers do have a legal duty here, even if it's worded softly.

Employers must comply with H&S regulations. If a way for them to comply with those is to allow additional breaks or shift modifications, then they should comply with that or face legal consequences.

'The body I'm in means I can never be a model or an athlete. I get quite easily stressed so I can't be in a very high pressure role. I'm also quite clumsy so couldn't be a waitress or any role requiring much dexterity.'

Exactly.

There's a massive difference between a solicitor in a wheelchair who needs reasonable adjustments like access and a wider working area and someone with anxiety applying for a stressful job and needing a break every 5mins. You've got to be realistic regarding your capability.