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.

he did, but why can't a disabled persona apply for a higher paying job?

Who said they can't? But nobody should be leaving jobs that suit them for jobs they know don't, and whinging about it. It's just plain stupid. He needs to take some responsibility for his own choices. Everybody can't handle every job, sometimes it limits earning potential. That's just life. He'll make himself unemployable if he gets a reputation for this (though I suspect that is the point).
But people don't usually voluntarily leave behind things they really really needed...

If a person who struggles with clothes can find a solution that doesn’t require them to be naked, then a person who struggles with shoes can find a solution that doesn’t require them to be barefoot in the workplace or walking the streets.

Of course, that would require a bit of work and effort from that person, wouldn’t it?

Sorry, but this kind of thinking is really off.
Why shouldn't my uncle apply for a higher-paying job just because his previous employer made an adjustment (like new flooring)? Reasonable adjustments aren’t some sort of lifetime contract. They’re just what the law says employers must do so disabled people can access and thrive in the workplace—same as ramps, screen readers, or ergonomic chairs. It’s not a personal favour, it’s compliance.
And for what it’s worth, yes the company spent around £3,000 on padded foam flooring, but they still have that flooring. It’s not like he took it with him. They can reuse it, repurpose it, or keep it in place for future staff who may benefit. That’s hardly a wasted investment and definitely not a reason to expect someone to stay in a job forever.
The fact that he got offered a better role only three weeks after the flooring went in is also irrelevant. Life happens. Sometimes opportunities come along unexpectedly, and you’re allowed to say yes even if the timing isn’t ideal. That’s just part of how employment works. People leave. Circumstances change. Disabled people shouldn’t be held to some higher moral standard just because they needed an adjustment to do their job.
He doesn’t owe that employer a lifetime of loyalty in exchange for something that was legally required. If a non-disabled person left for a better salary or career progression, no one would bat an eyelid. But a disabled person does it, and suddenly it’s “whinging” or “stupid”? That’s not a good look.
People are allowed to change jobs. They’re allowed to want better pay, better conditions, or just a change. And disabled people especially shouldn’t feel trapped in one role forever out of guilt or fear of judgment. If the new job doesn’t work out, that’s between him and his new employer—and it's entirely possible to need support and take responsibility at the same time.
He’s not the problem here. The double standards are.

but occupational health, an independent service suggested barefoot or work from home!

Jesus wept

To be fair, op hasn’t flounced off and has tried to respond to points made, whether you agree with them or not.

“Jesus wept” is right but probably more at the state of attitudes like yours than anything else.
For clarity: almost every Employment Tribunal case that’s upheld in a disability discrimination context includes an injury to feelings award. That’s standard under the Equality Act 2010 and part of the recognised remedy for the harm caused not just emotional, but the psychological impact of being treated unfairly. It sits alongside any compensation for lost earnings or failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The point of these rulings isn’t just to hand over cash. It’s to uphold legal protections and remind employers they have responsibilities. If someone has to go through the stress of being ignored, dismissed, or made to feel lesser in the workplace because of a disability and the law sides with them then yes, they’re entitled to compensation for that. And rightly so.
What people seem to forget is: most of these cases could be avoided if employers just followed the law in the first place. That’s what’s actually exhausting not disabled people standing up for themselves.

thanks, I'm not saying every adjustment is reasonable, i'm simply saying employers should try and do more...

But that doesn’t mean that a) wfh works for the role or b) it’s fair to the colleagues who don’t feel comfortable with him barefoot in the office

.Occupational health looks at recommendations specific to the individual. The employer then looks if they can be accommodated. Quite possibly neither of them work in his particular place of work and thereby it would be unreasonable to accommodate

I don't work in a profit led business, I work in local government with essential services where employees needing reduced case loads for their anxiety and ADHD etc has direct impact on colleagues and families in need

Clues in the name -

Reasonable.

Are you saying he’s taking another employer to a tribunal?

I've never once said disabled people shouldn't be able or allowed to apply for promotions. So stop hiding false accusations in your walls of text please.
But everyone, disabled or otherwise, bears some responsibility for designing a life that suits them. Deliberately leaving a situation that accommodates your wants and needs is silly. It's nothing to do with him being disabled, it's basic personal responsibility.

Majority of employees DO make RAs. The issue comes when people like you take the piss out of it and take them to tribunal. Some of the examples you gave ARENT reasonable and actually impact negatively on others.
I manage a large team and we do give RAs etc but if a person isn't fundamentally capable of doing the job then they shouldn't be doing it. It's not fair to ask everyone else to suffer just for 1 person. That's not right.

You never mention personal responsibility in all of this, instead focusing on entitled behaviours and putting all the onus on the employer.
We are turning into a society where personal responsibility no longer exists, that's why so many employers turn to AI.
AI doesn't need RA, HR, occ health etc.

Your uncle with the special flooring left after a few weeks

You spent the money from suing a homeless charity on paying off your mortgage

I'm rubbish at spotting trolls and don't agree with troll hunting generally but you are pushing the boundaries of believability here OP ...

Yes, Occupational Health makes recommendations tailored to the individual, but that doesn’t mean those recommendations are optional whims for the employer to ignore. Employers are legally obliged to seriously consider those adjustments under the Equality Act and unless they can clearly show it would be unreasonable (not just unpopular or mildly inconvenient), they’re expected to accommodate them.
And let’s be honest someone being barefoot due to a medical or sensory need isn’t harming anyone. You might not like it, and that’s fair enough, but discomfort isn’t the same as a legal barrier. We work with all kinds of people in offices some with strong perfume, noisy breathing, or habits we find annoying. You can’t just veto someone’s medical adjustment because you don’t like the look of it.
If working from home isn’t possible for the role, then the employer should be exploring every reasonable in-office option including being barefoot if it causes no serious risk or disruption. That’s how adjustments work. They’re not always ideal for everyone, but they exist to make work possible for the person who otherwise wouldn’t be able to do it at all.
And honestly, if people are this distressed by someone’s bare feet, the problem might not be the feet.

i'm not trolling, I just help my family stand up for their rights!

if the company don't allow either WFH or barefoot working then yes we will be.

From what I can gather - this will be the second charity he’s either taken to tribunal or encouraged to pay for something and then left, and their third as a family.

They deeply dislike charities, evidently.

Your uncle leaving after an employer invested significantly in him… poor show. Why ask for an expensive adjustment if you aren’t intending to stay? It’s such a specific adjustment it’s unlikely to be valuable to anyone else.

It’s also going to make employers seriously reluctant to invest in the next person that asks for adjustments.

There are employers who are refusing actual reasonable adjustments to people who need them- a woman traumatised by an incident in the office being forced to return despite the job having been done perfectly well remotely during lockdowns, for example. That’s who should be taken to tribunals, not people who apply for jobs they aren’t temperamentally suited to.

Wow, okay. Let’s just take a breath.
I’ve never said every single adjustment should be made, no matter what. I’ve said employers should try harder and approach adjustments with openness, not resistance and that many, frankly, still don’t. The whole point of the law is to explore what’s reasonable, not to throw your hands up the moment someone needs something different.
And no, the existence of a few tribunal cases doesn’t mean people are “taking the piss.” If a tribunal upholds a case, it means the law found the employer hadn’t done enough. That’s not entitlement it’s someone standing up for their rights after being let down. You don’t get awarded compensation just for fun.
Personal responsibility? Disabled people live it every single day managing their conditions, navigating stigma, working harder to prove themselves. But employers also have responsibilities. That’s the balance. It’s not about making everyone suffer for one person it’s about making the workplace flexible enough that all kinds of people can contribute. That’s what reasonable adjustments are for.
And as for the AI comment if your solution to basic human responsibility is to replace people with machines so you don’t have to deal with HR or inclusivity… that says more about your management style than anything else.

That uncle doesn't exist.

It's clearly Reform, trying to spread hate rate against disabled. The same as they stirred anti Muslim unrest after Southport.

If this uncle did exist, someone on MN working for charities would recognise this pretty unique case and would use this thread to prove he's scammer.

Time to close this thread, let's report.

Or they just know an easy target...

I think you are just trolling now. Getting your bare feet out in the office is not acceptable. I do have rights to complain if a colleague smells or has bad habits I find annoying. Many people have fungus and other issues with their feet I don’t want to see on a daily basis in my place of work. If one person is allowed that accommodation then any not the rest of us if it doesn’t cause any issue to our collegues?