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.

The Equality Act exists to protect people from being treated unfairly due to disability, and the judge in my case upheld that those protections were breached. That’s not a matter of opinion it’s a legal fact.
You’re free to disagree with the law, but personal attacks and name-calling don’t change the reality that disabled people have rights. My case wasn’t about getting special treatment it was about being allowed to continue working without harm, which any decent employer should support.
And just to be clear saying you “wouldn’t want to hire someone like me” because I brought a legal claim or because of a disability? That would be unlawful under the Equality Act too. Past tribunal claims and protected characteristics like disability aren’t valid grounds for refusing to employ someone they’re grounds for another claim.
If standing up for my rights makes me unwelcome to you, that probably says more about your values than mine.

Agreed.

I'm a police officer and there's an officer on Response who's self diagnosed with ADHD and now sits in the office with ear defenders on and a green/red light she presses depending on if she's willing to speak to anyone at that given time. (it's almost always red)

I'm sorry but.
I mean.
Come on.

*exploiting

I understand why it might raise eyebrows, but tribunal awards are meant to compensate for harm including lost income, emotional distress, and the impact of discrimination. What I choose to do with that money once awarded is entirely up to me. It doesn’t change the fact that the judge found in my favour after considering all the evidence. The real focus should be on the fact that the employer failed in their legal duty, not how I spent the compensation for their breach.

I'm glad they get their reasonable adjustments!

If you’re not emotionally equipped to work with vulnerable people without it dramatically affecting your wellbeing, don’t work with them.

I wouldn’t be a social worker, or work in palliative care, or in fact elderly care. I’m not resilient enough, and I know that about myself.

I wouldn’t accept any of those jobs and then ask for them to be changed so I could cope. I just wouldn’t do them, because they’re not in my capacity.

so you're saying people with anxiety can't do certain jobs? that's not okay.

Of course it’s OK. Not everyone is suited to every kind of job.

You sound like an absolute grifter.

People should have to prove whatever they are claiming to have to the satisfaction of a Doctor
That’s my opinion and I am sure the opinion of lots of people
Friend of mine took on a new member of staff who failed her probation as she did virtually no work,was on her phone all day and followed no instructions
She then claimed unfair dismissal on grounds of anxiety caused by use of cocaine
Fortunately the court threw it out
I a m a liberal leftie but much of this is ridiculous

And I'm sure you'd feel the same if this officer was the only available crew when you call 999 and no one can attend because she's 'overwhelmed'.

It is OK, not everyone can do every job...

Still unsure if this is a parody/satire/reform type AI rage bait

Some people aren’t equipped for certain jobs, whether that’s physically or emotionally.

I couldn’t be a police officer either, wouldn’t get through the bleep test.

I am not emotionally resilient enough to not cry in my car after going into a family’s home to establish if they’re neglecting their child. Or to tell someone their loved one is dying. Or to work with homeless people, incidentally.

Having anxiety does not mean that the world owes you a favour, or a living.

There are jobs we can do, I’m full time employed in a senior management position, but it’s not unreasonable to recognise your inability to perform certain roles successfully.

I am limited by anxiety, if I wasn’t I wouldn’t have it. I would never push those limitations by putting myself in an environment I’m not suitable for.

Personal responsibility. It’s not difficult.

I'm glad the case got thrown out, drug use is not okay

Well of course it's okay. If the job can't be done, then it's not viable.

You couldn't be a surgeon, but need to take breaks when you're 'overwhelmed'. The job does not allow for that.

What did you do with the £35K?

Donate it to charity perchance?

No. She used the funds for homeless people to pay her mortgage down.

public sector employers like the police actually have an even greater responsibility by law when it comes to supporting disabled staff, including those with ADHD. It’s not just the usual Equality Act stuff (though that applies too) they also have to meet something called the Public Sector Equality Duty.
That basically means they don’t just wait around to deal with issues when someone complains they’re legally expected to be proactive about inclusion. So things like making sure policies don’t unfairly disadvantage disabled staff, anticipating what adjustments might be needed, and creating a supportive environment? That’s all part of their duty.
So if someone with ADHD is working in a policing role, the force is required to make reasonable adjustments whether that’s extra support, flexible supervision, adjusted duties, or whatever’s appropriate. They absolutely should not be left to struggle on their own. If they are, that’s a legal problem waiting to happen.
Basically, the police should be making sure that person isn’t left isolated. It’s not a favour. It’s a legal requirement.

I have a weak wrist from a break 30 years ago so I don’t have much strength. Are they saying I can’t do a heavy lifting warehouse job- that’s not ok!

hear yourself! I have low level anxiety (I expect like most women particularly) and I am a bit too emotional at times so I wouldn’t ever want to work somewhere potentially distressing. I simply self exclude from roles where I know wouldn’t work for me. I would go and work in rape crisis or child protection for example and then say sorry I find it too hard to do so just put me in the back office and I’ll shuffle the paperwork.

we all have to run alongside each other whatever our backgrounds. Reasonable adaptations of course should be considered and put in place but clearly we have waaaaay different views of what’s reasonable. No, inflicting stinky feet on collegues will never be reasonable.

yes, as fortunately I found a new higher paid position shortly after that accommodated my disability well until leaving to start my own business.

So you didn’t actually lose that amount in earnings, do you?

But you have taken a 40% reduction in your salary. If you have fatigue as a result of cancer then that is a disability and your employer should have allowed you those rest breaks.

I think the problem is those people who self diagnose anxiety yet seem to travel/go clubbing/have huge amounts of energy/look fabulous etc. I think they probably do find certain tasks anxiety provoking, but I’m not sure that’s really in the spirit of the equality act. Certain things can make us anxious or sad, but in my opinion that doesn’t necessarily equate to being “disabled “ by anxiety or depression.
A good employer should support them to try to conquer the things that make them anxious or if not they should choose another job. For example when I first started my job I was terrified of dealing with clients, but it did get easier. It’s not fair for them to cherry pick certain aspects of the job when they’re not suited to them (thinking of the police officer who gets triggered by conflict or the dental hygienist who has a phobia of blood leaving fellow colleagues to pick up the slack.

The op and her uncle amongst other family members are probably claiming PIP.

Thanks for sharing your perspective though I think we’re clearly coming from very different places when it comes to what’s considered “reasonable.” Just to clarify, being barefoot in an office can absolutely be a reasonable adjustment for someone with a medical or sensory need, just like other accommodations people may not always see or understand. It’s not about “inflicting” anything on colleagues it’s about basic dignity and inclusivity in the workplace.
I hope none of your coworkers ever find themselves in a position where they need that kind of adjustment and face the same level of judgment. But if they do, I sincerely hope their office handles it better than your comment suggests.
We all deserve to work in environments that accommodate our needs without being shamed for them.

no but some of the money was for injury to feelings as well as punishment for the discrimination.

no one in my immediate family apart from my uncle claims pip.