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.

Who asks their employer to install new special flooring then flounces? That's unhinged behavior. If he was job hunting he should have managed for sake of 3 fucking weeks.
Behavior like that, suing willy nilly and job hopping when you actually get your way will lead to no employer touching disabled people with a barge pole.

You’re free to think what you like but if my uncle doesn’t get a fair assessment for WFH or working without shoes based on medical need, then yes, he’ll be taking it to tribunal. Because that’s exactly what the Equality Act 2010 is there for: to stop employers from casually dismissing disabled people’s access needs just because it makes someone else uncomfortable or doesn’t fit the office aesthetic.
WFH has been ruled a reasonable adjustment in multiple cases post-Covid and no, people don’t need to prove they’re shoeless in Tesco to deserve one at work. That’s not how medical conditions or legal rights work.
As for your example your colleague getting reassigned work they can do is exactly the kind of practical adjustment the law encourages. Great! But not everyone has that kind of manager. Many disabled people are shown the door instead of being supported. That’s why these conversations matter.
So again: if an employer doesn’t even attempt to assess whether something like WFH or going barefoot is safe and reasonable based on medical evidence, and they just say “no” out of hand? They’re not just being stubborn they’re breaking the law. And that’s what tribunals exist to deal with.

What will you do OP when everyone is on reasonable adjustments and there are no workers left? You do realise eventually people will get fed up, and those who have the means to leave will go.

yes I do run a business.

clearly charities need to follow the law like any other business

Agreed.

These people sound like professional complainers.

Angry, of Rotherham. Face all over the papers pointing sadly at the floor because it’s wrong.

Absolutely none of them sound like I’d have the patience to employ them.

Yes but you are missing the point - there is obviously the law and there is the moral thing to do. Getting a charity to spend a lot of money for only you and then to leave shortly after (so he likely knew he was thinking about leaving as they were installing it) is immoral. Sorry but it is.

That is a reasonable adjustment and it’s one that’s been upheld repeatedly in tribunals. If someone’s disability means they can’t sustain the same output as others without harming their health, then reducing targets or adjusting deadlines can absolutely be reasonable. It's even listed in the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Statutory Code of Practice, which employers are expected to follow. So no this isn’t just “demands.” It’s literally the law.
You talk about resentment but the resentment should be aimed at employers who refuse to plan workloads properly, not at disabled people trying to stay in work without burning out. A disabled person doing 80% of the job with adjustments is still doing more than if they were pushed out entirely because the environment was too rigid.
And if that makes someone uncomfortable, then maybe the issue isn’t the adjustment it’s that too many people think equality means everyone suffering equally. It doesn’t. It means removing unfair barriers, even if it makes you rethink what “normal” looks like.
Reasonable adjustments aren’t about perks. They’re about survival. If you're still stuck on thinking flexibility = unfairness, you’re missing the point and possibly the law too.

It’s not as simple as a 5 minute GP appointment to get reasonable adjustments for anxiety.

Yes, anxiety can, under certain circumstances, give employees the legal right to reasonable adjustments in the workplace. If anxiety is considered a disability under the Equality Act 2010 (meaning it has a substantial and long-term negative effect on a person's ability to do normal daily activities), then employers are legally obligated to make reasonable adjustments to remove or reduce any disadvantages the employee experiences due to their anxiety.

Good luck with providing the evidence that your anxiety has substantial and long term negative effect on your ability to do daily activities after a 5 minute GP appointment particularly when it doesn’t.

At the time, I was younger and didn’t have a formal diagnosis but that doesn’t mean the anxiety wasn’t real or serious. It just means I didn’t have the tools, language, or confidence to navigate the system yet. And honestly? A lot of disabled and neurodivergent people are in the exact same boat. You can’t demand people magically produce paperwork overnight when we all know how hard and slow getting support can be, especially for mental health.
As for the £3k flooring and the tribunal payout both were legally awarded because the employers failed in their legal duties. My uncle didn’t sneak in under cover of darkness and lay down new floors himself. The charity chose to make that adjustment, because it was reasonable and necessary for someone with a genuine medical need. And he didn’t “run off” he left for a promotion, like people do every day.
The £35k wasn’t for “5 minute breaks” it was for a sustained failure to accommodate a disability, which caused harm and broke the law. You don’t get compensation from a tribunal unless the judge agrees your rights were breached. That’s not immoral. That’s justice doing what it’s supposed to do.
Charities don’t get a free pass to ignore the Equality Act. If they can’t meet the legal obligations of being an employer, then they need to rethink how they treat people not vilify the ones who stood up for themselves.

If the reasonably adjustable was about survival, why did your uncle run as soon as he got it, for a job that didn't have it? Evidently it wasn't actually all that vital if he left voluntarily almost immediately after the adjustments were made.

Am I the only one who thinks that the uncle could have just put a pair of loose fitting socks or special footwear on?

But then you don't get special treatment and another chance to sue when you stand on something sharp.

So just to be clear you're saying that once a disabled person receives a reasonable adjustment, they should stay in that job forever, even if a better opportunity comes up? That they shouldn’t dare apply for a promotion or leave for career progression, or they’re somehow “scamming” the system?
That’s ridiculous. Disabled people aren’t second-class workers. They have the same rights as anyone else to pursue better jobs, develop their careers, and accept promotions. The fact that an adjustment was made doesn’t mean they’re locked into a role for life as some kind of trade-off. That’s not how rights work.
My uncle didn’t “flounce.” He asked for a legal, medically supported adjustment that the employer agreed to after assessment. He then got a better job offer which he earned and moved on, like anyone with ambition and talent would. That’s not bad behaviour. That’s what a healthy working life looks like.
And seriously why should he have to keep working in pain for weeks on the off chance he might get a promotion? No one says that to non-disabled workers. You wouldn’t tell someone without access needs to grit their teeth through unnecessary discomfort just in case their new role comes through. That expectation only gets applied to disabled people, and it’s completely unfair.
Adjustments aren’t a chain. They’re what make it possible for people to do their jobs and move on from them too.

Please don’t condescend me about an issue that I have.

I understand that having anxiety doesn’t end at diagnosis. OP said she wasn’t diagnosed. Getting the actual initial confirmation that you have it, is in itself not difficult.

You also have no idea if my anxiety has a significant impact on my ability to do anything, so I’d thank you for not assuming.

Actually, my anxiety was diagnosed not in a "5-minute GP chat" but in a 30-minute appointment with a qualified online doctor, who then followed up with a written letter summarising the impact on my daily functioning. That letter was accepted by the tribunal as part of the evidence. So no, this wasn’t just someone saying “I feel a bit nervous sometimes.” It was a recognised disability under the Equality Act because of its substantial and long-term effects.
A lot of people in this thread are grossly underestimating how employment law works. You don’t get £35k for nothing. A tribunal looked at the facts the adjustment I asked for, the employer’s refusal, the harm caused and agreed I had been treated unlawfully. That’s not “gaming the system.” That’s holding an employer accountable for failing to meet their legal duty.
And as for the charity yes, it’s unfortunate when any organisation has to pay compensation, but charities aren’t exempt from the law. If you choose to become an employer, you take on legal responsibilities. That includes supporting disabled staff fairly and lawfully.

Well, that's £35,000 no longer available to spent on the charity's services.

You haven’t answered which vulnerable group you took £35k from.

There is a huge difference between what is legal and what is moral. Suing at this point up to 3 (?!) charities, is immoral.

I think they should have to stay for more than 3 weeks, yes. Askign a charity to spend thousands on special flooring and immediately leaving is enormously immoral. He should be ashamed of himself in my opinion. What a waste of time and money.
And actually, anyone would be stupid to leave a job that suits them for a job that they know doesn't. That's just common sense. Unless of course the plan is to sue...

but you are ignoring the fact that occupational health an actual trained medical professional assessed my uncle’s needs and specifically recommended barefoot working or WFH as a reasonable adjustment.
It’s wild how quick people are to dismiss medical advice the moment it clashes with their own personal preferences. If a qualified expert has assessed the risk and said those are the appropriate options, why should random bystanders get to second-guess that with, “Oh he could’ve just worn loose socks”? That’s not how reasonable adjustments work. You don’t override clinical guidance with vibes and guesses.
The law expects employers to give serious weight to OH advice, not crowdsource alternatives from people who don’t know the details. If a doctor says barefoot or home working is what’s needed, then that’s what should be considered not eye rolls and “Well I wouldn’t like it.”

Occie health can recommend lots of things. It doesn't mean the employer has to do them if they don't deem them to be reasonable for that particular workplace.

The point remains that it took 30mins to get a diagnosis letter. Online, I’d add.

If you wanted those adjustments, you should have got the letter, before you asked.

My boss is a decent guy. I wouldn’t dare turn up to a meeting asking for adjustments without the evidence of the reason why, because I honestly think it’s cheeky to ask for flexibility for something you can’t or haven’t proven.

It was a charity supporting homeless people and no, I won’t name them because I still want to respect anonymity and privacy. But let’s be very clear here: being a charity doesn’t exempt you from following the law. You don’t get to break the Equality Act just because your mission is a worthy one.
Charities are still employers. They still have HR departments. They still receive public funding in many cases and benefit from tax breaks. If they hire staff disabled or not they are legally required to provide a safe, fair, and lawful workplace. That includes making reasonable adjustments for disabled employees. Full stop.
You can believe in the good work charities do and still hold them accountable when they fall short. It’s not “immoral” to ask a charity to follow the law what’s immoral is letting legal obligations slide because someone’s doing “important” work. That just excuses harm.
And for the record: I didn’t take £35k from a vulnerable group. I was awarded compensation by a tribunal after a legal process found my employer had failed in their duties and caused harm. That’s not theft or immorality that’s accountability.

that maybe but I absolutely think it is disgusting to inflict on the rest of the workforce in the office. So in the end it is whose rights trump whose? I would raise a grievance if a colleague was wondering around barefoot without any socks at the very least. (I would still think they are risk of stubbing their toes on office furniture or random sharp items like staples or stones that have been brought in)

The onus was on you to get a diagnosis before you started making requests. The law might not agree, but that’s how most of us with issues operate. Prove first, then ask.

You took £35k from the homeless. No further questions.