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.

Actually, under the Equality Act 2010, an employee doesn’t need to have a formal diagnosis before requesting adjustments. The legal definition of disability is based on whether a person has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term negative effect on their ability to do normal daily activities. That includes conditions like anxiety even if they’re not formally diagnosed yet.
Employers have a duty to consider adjustments once they are put on notice that someone may be disabled under the Act. That means once someone discloses they’re struggling due to a health issue, employers are expected to consider support not just dismiss it because there isn’t a letter yet. In fact, tribunals have made clear that refusing to engage with someone’s request for adjustments until they “prove” it can itself be discriminatory.
You don’t need a consultant’s letter or months of paperwork to start the conversation. Of course, getting medical evidence is helpful (and in my case, I did a 30-minute online consultation with a qualified clinician, which the tribunal accepted). But the law is designed to protect people from being punished or disbelieved for simply trying to function at work.
Good managers listen, assess, and support not gatekeep access to help based on who can afford or access formal diagnoses quickly.

Yes, occupational health makes recommendations, not orders but if an employer chooses to ignore them, they’d better have a very solid reason. The whole point of getting an Occ Health report is to guide the employer on what adjustments might be reasonable to remove disadvantage due to disability. If they get a clear recommendation (say, remote working, rest breaks, or a specific piece of equipment) and then just dismiss it because they “don’t fancy it,” that’s exactly the kind of thing that ends up in a tribunal.
And tribunals don’t tend to look kindly on employers who ignore professional medical advice and can’t show they at least seriously considered it or tried to explore alternatives. “We didn’t deem it reasonable” isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card unless they’ve done a proper assessment and can show why financially, practically, operationally it couldn’t work.
So yes, OH advice isn’t legally binding, but if you ignore it without good reason, you’re setting yourself up for legal trouble. That’s the reality of the Equality Act.

You’ve read the Equality Act 2010? You’ve not said 😂

That 30min appointment could have happened first, and I think you know that. You got the appointment and diagnosis to strengthen your tribunal case “see! I do have anxiety!” But could have done it earlier.

Legal or otherwise, if I need flexibility or an adjustment, I’m offering my employer the evidence for why. I don’t believe we should be able to just say we have things.

YANBU. Employers could do a lot more. There has been legislation on this since after the First World War (to cater for returning servicemen) and it has consistently been evaded.

God, can you imagine if more people get wind of this it'll be a free for all. No need for a diagnosis just diagnose yoursled folks! More breaks, more 'decompressing' more passing the buck to your stressed colleagues. It'll make the over claiming in pip seem like peanuts.

Right? 35 bloody k!

That charity could rent 2 two bed flats in London for a year to house two families with these money. This is excl litigation fees.

It feels like this family took tens if not hundreds thousands from various charities for their so called disabilities, not diagnosed.

Lots of things are legal but still immoral. Cheating on a spouse is legal and would be upheld by law - that doesn't make it right. You took 35000 pounds from a homeless charity. That is despicable.

I do understand that some people find feet a bit off-putting but personal discomfort or aesthetic dislike isn’t the same as a genuine health and safety risk or legal exemption. Reasonable adjustments are about removing barriers for disabled people, not prioritising someone else’s squeamishness.
Occupational Health recommended barefoot working or WFH as a medical necessity for my uncle. That recommendation was risk-assessed, not just granted on a whim. Employers are expected to take those kinds of recommendations seriously and explore how they can be implemented safely such as with a designated clean workstation, soft flooring, signage, etc.
And no, the law doesn’t work on a “whose rights trump whose” basis. It works on what’s reasonable and proportionate under the circumstances. A disabled employee’s need to avoid physical harm will, legally, carry more weight than a colleague’s dislike of bare feet just as a guide dog user’s rights wouldn’t be outweighed by someone’s fear of dogs. That’s not unfair. It’s the point of the Equality Act.

I agree

I understand this subject brings up strong feelings for some people, but just to be absolutely clear: I didn’t “take” £35,000 from anyone. A legal judgment was made in my favour after a tribunal found that my employer a charity had broken the law by failing to make reasonable adjustments for a recognised disability. That money was compensation for the harm caused by unlawful treatment, not a prize I walked off with.
Charities, no matter how worthy their mission, are still employers. They are not exempt from the Equality Act 2010. If they hire staff, they take on the same legal responsibilities as any business. That includes making reasonable adjustments for disabled employees.
The idea that following due process and holding an employer accountable for unlawful treatment is “despicable” says more about how little some people understand the law than it does about me. The fact that the charity supports vulnerable people doesn’t give them the right to treat disabled staff unfairly.
If we start saying that some people deserve fewer rights because their employer is a charity, we’re creating a dangerous double standard. Disabled people don’t stop being entitled to dignity and lawful treatment just because they work in the third sector.

I find it astonishing to believe your family has such a high rate of unreasonable employers. There's a common denominator here.....

Self diagnosis is indeed a pathway to people asking for what they like. Turn up to OH, claim you have anxiety, and get half the workload for the same pay. Win win for the employees, until businesses close.

why is everyone bashing my family, the case was upheld by a judge!

So if there is someone with a really bad rash on their back that wearing a shirt would be very uncomfortable, then it would be totally allowable that could sit next to you topless and who cares about your collegue’s discomfort?

sorry but you can’t just ride roughshod over other people which you clearly think people should do. If the person wants to not wear shoes to and from work and under their desk (assuming their feet don’t smell) then fine but it is not unreasonable that they wear shoes when walking around the office. That would be a reasonable adaptation.

In my entire life (and I'm well over 50), having travelled many countries, I have never ever seen anyone in Europe/North America walking barefoot anywhere in cities/ offices.

Being in that charity shoes I'd really follow your uncle on the way to/from place of work, public transport to see him walking barefoot.

Or wild thought maybe it’s because my family actually stands up for their rights instead of just rolling over when they’re treated unfairly. A lot of people on this thread have shared stories where they were denied adjustments they should have got. And instead of taking it further, they just accepted it or left. That’s not a lack of problems it’s a lack of accountability.
Employment tribunals exist for a reason. If more people actually used them, instead of assuming it’s “cheeky” to ask for what they’re legally entitled to, employers might take the Equality Act a bit more seriously.
And no self-diagnosis doesn’t mean people are “asking for what they like.” You still need to show that the condition is having a substantial, long-term impact on day-to-day life. OH and tribunals don’t just hand out passes to anyone who says they’re a bit stressed. If they ruled in our favour, it’s because the case had merit not because we gamed the system.
The real “common denominator” here is that some people hate seeing disabled people ask for fair treatment and even more so when they actually get it.

Surely she donated the 35k right back to homeless people?

How can she meet with only 5 homeless people a day and need to regroup and decompress? It is so very wtf.

Well I for one am not entirely sure whether I just read a serious thread, a parody, a strangely dedicated attempt by a Reform supporter to garner sympathy for abolishing the Equality Act or if I just accidentally clicked on a convoluted advert from a company that develops AI systems to replace workers.

I’ve had generalised anxiety disorder all of my adult life, and periods of acute anxiety that render me basically non-functional.

I find it genuinely irritating that some people think that they can just get any doctor to say what they want, and then they can either get their way or sue someone.

It puts those of us who manage everyday in an appalling light, and absolutely gets my back up.

OP may have legitimate issues. But far too many people “play the MH card” and drag the rest of us down with them.

Honestly, this comparison just isn’t helpful. The law isn’t about people doing whatever they fancy or flouting basic decency. It’s about supporting people with genuine, medically recognised disabilities through reasonable adjustments that help them do their job safely.
In my uncle’s case, Occupational Health a professional medical service did a proper assessment and said barefoot working or WFH was medically necessary. It wasn’t a whim, a preference, or “he just likes the feeling of carpet.” It was a clinical recommendation to prevent pain and injury. That’s the bar for adjustments under the Equality Act: substantial and long-term impact on daily functioning.
You can't compare that to someone casually deciding not to wear a shirt because of a rash. If a doctor made that recommendation and the workplace could accommodate it in a safe and respectful way, sure, it would need to be considered. But it’s a total straw man and not remotely comparable to feet in clean conditions, following risk assessments.
And no one is “riding roughshod” over anyone. That’s the point of reasonable adjustments they’re supposed to balance needs, not ignore them. But yes, sometimes people’s comfort might take a backseat to another person’s right not to be in pain or excluded from work entirely.
You might not like bare feet, just like some people don’t like guide dogs, mobility aids, or neurodivergent colleagues. But that discomfort doesn’t trump someone else’s medical needs. That’s not me being rude, that’s literally how the law works.

No I used the money to find another job, once I did I used the rest to pay down my mortgage.

A) judges aren't infallible and B) the law is often unfair or at least can lead to unfair outcomes in individual cases.

I'm not judging you or you family because of your anxiety. I'm judging you on your actions, which I see as despicable. I wouldn't want to associate with people like you and would not want to hire someone like you.

I'm guessing you wouldn't want to be friends or work with me either.

You have inspired me to read more into the equality act and research which political parties are in favour of this nonsense.

My thoughts exactly. It feels more and more like Reform stirring sh.t

I wouldn't vote Reform but this thread has definitely made me pay more attention to the problem of people very clearly exploring the system for their own benefit.

What you’re describing isn’t just wildly inappropriate it’s potentially unlawful.
Following someone to “check” if they’re really disabled or deserving of adjustments? That’s harassment. Plain and simple. Disabled people don’t owe you a performance of their condition in public to prove they’re “valid” enough to work.
And if you're suggesting that someone at the charity should track him down using personal information (like his address or commute details), that’s a serious data protection breach. Employers have a legal duty under GDPR to protect employee information, not weaponise it or share it for snooping.
If my uncle had actually been followed home or on his commute using information gained through work, that would open the door to another legal claim — and rightly so.
This kind of “gotcha” attitude is exactly why so many disabled people don’t feel safe asking for adjustments. Because instead of being supported, they’re treated like suspects stalked, disbelieved, and punished for daring to assert their rights.
The Equality Act protects disabled workers for a reason. If your instinct is to spy on someone rather than respect a risk-assessed medical adjustment, maybe ask yourself what that says and whether you’d be okay with your own employer doing the same to you.

Paying down the mortgage on the house you own, with money you took out of a homeless charity.

Surely that absolutely horrendous irony isn’t lost on you.