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.

FFS you are wasting the money of charities!
He should have asked these things prior to accepting a new role. His references are going to identify this issue soon, explicitly stated or not. It's utterly immoral starting a new employment knowing you need these RAs and not declaring up front.

Your uncle’s bare feet could cause another employee considerable stress and they also demand reasonable adjustments be made to accommodate the stress. What happens then?

OP I think everyone would like to see a more inclusive work culture.

BUT your opinions are very polar. Business needs to make a profit. That is how our economy works. If the business makes a loss in order to be inclusive, then everyone looses their jobs. That's why its reasonable adjustments. Not all jobs can be adapted. The doubling up on staff so that someone incapable of doing their role can keep it, (police responder mentioned above) while someone else does the work is just play acting work while receiving enhanced benefits. A truly well thought out inclusive society is one where everyone can work at a job they are good at and suited.

Sorry, but this whole idea that disabled people need to sign some invisible loyalty contract in exchange for legally required adjustments is… a bit grim, honestly.
My uncle didn’t plan to leave right after the adjustment. Life threw up a better opportunity, and like anyone else, he took it. That’s not “poor show” that’s how the job market works. Non-disabled people leave after training courses, mentoring, relocation support, you name it and no one suggests they’ve done something morally wrong. But the second a disabled person accepts a reasonable adjustment and then moves on? Suddenly it’s betrayal. That’s a double standard, plain and simple.
Also, it wasn’t “for nothing.” The employer still has the specialist flooring. They can reuse it. They can support another staff member down the line. It’s an investment in accessibility, not a wasted gift. And if they genuinely come away from that thinking, “Well I won’t bother next time,” that says more about them than the employee.
Yes, some employers are doing far worse, and yes, they should absolutely be taken to tribunal too. But it’s not an either/or. Failing to make reasonable adjustments is illegal regardless of whether someone else is doing something worse. The long arm of the employment tribunal judge doesn’t just reach for the worst offenders it reaches for anyone who refuses to follow the law.
Disabled people shouldn’t have to apologise for pursuing opportunities. The idea that they should stay put forever out of gratitude is both unrealistic and deeply unfair.

AI is coming to replace over 50% of us in the not too distant future. Nothing to do with my management style! It's just fact

First off, if another employee genuinely experiences clinical-level distress due to a colleague’s bare feet (not just dislike or discomfort), then they too are entitled to reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. That’s how the law works it doesn’t pick favourites. It’s up to the employer to navigate that situation sensibly, ideally with Occupational Health input on both sides.
But let’s not pretend this is an unsolvable dilemma. Offices accommodate clashing needs all the time lighting preferences, noise sensitivity, scent allergies, anxiety triggers. That’s why it’s called reasonable adjustment. It’s about finding workable compromises, not declaring one person’s needs invalid because someone else doesn’t like it.
Also, let’s be honest: it’s incredibly rare for someone to be medically distressed just by seeing feet. We're not talking about someone throwing them on a shared desk or walking around barefoot in a canteen we’re talking quiet, practical accommodation due to a genuine health or sensory need. That shouldn't be derailed because someone else finds it a bit weird.
So yes employers need to consider the whole team, but that includes the disabled person too. Not just the most vocal discomfort.

It sounds like the current law goes to far and needs to be changed, judging by how unfair it sounds, how unworkable in practice, and now iniquitous.

There are massive reasons to accommodate disabled people and help them achieve as much as they can, and to pay them for what they achieve.

I can’t see any reasons to promote them into a job if (after reasonable adjustments) they are not the best candidate or to pay them full pay for half the work.

Everyone deals with different challenges and the world doesn’t owe them a living. Should a stupid person be promoted to CEO of a drug company because he failed his biochemistry degree but he won’t need it as CEO?!

It is all about fairness and what people believe to be fair (which varies between societies and over time). I personally feel that the pendulum has swung too far when someone called me racist when I said I treat everyone the same. I get the argument. I just don’t agree with it.

Compassion, fairness and equality of opportunity are the mark of any civilised society. If someone can contribute to a business, they should be helped to do so. But, if they can’t really in a meaningful way, they have to try something else, in the same way as everyone does.

'Disabled people live it every single day managing their conditions, navigating stigma, working harder to prove themselves'

They do but your self diagnosed anxiety isn't a disability. Needing more breaks between meeting 5 clients is not an adjustment and whichever judge allegedly awarded you 35k was acting extremely questionably imo.

This idea that it’s "immoral" not to declare disability needs before starting a job is honestly part of the reason so many disabled people hide them in the first place.
People don’t have to disclose their medical conditions during recruitment. That’s a legal right, and it exists for a reason because discrimination in hiring is still very real. Many charities and disability organisations actively advise people to wait until day one to disclose, when they’re protected under the Equality Act. It’s not sneaky it’s survival.
As for "wasting the money of charities" no. The waste is employers not taking basic, legal steps to accommodate staff. If a workplace refuses both remote work and a simple, health-backed adjustment like going barefoot, then yes a tribunal is a perfectly legitimate route. That’s what it’s there for. Not to punish, but to hold employers accountable.
And let’s not pretend references will carry secret warnings and black marks that’s illegal too. If someone’s made a valid legal claim and it’s left a sour taste with an employer, that doesn’t make them unemployable. It means they stood up for themselves.
The only thing that’s "utterly immoral" here is implying disabled people should keep quiet, not rock the boat, and accept whatever scraps they’re given. That’s not how equality works.

Don’t you think your uncle should have asked those questions at the interview stage? And if the answer was no then he should have looked for an alternative employer. People do need to take responsibility for themselves.

But many people who do leave after relocation, training etc are asked to pay it back as contractually the company expects you to work a certain amount of time after you have incurred the cost

AI is coming to replace over 50% of us in the not too distant future. Nothing to do with my management style! It's just fact

Honestly, this kind of attitude is exactly why so many people don’t disclose mental health conditions at work.
Anxiety whether “self-diagnosed” or formally recognised can absolutely qualify as a disability under the Equality Act if it has a substantial, long-term impact on your ability to carry out day-to-day tasks. Needing more breaks between intensive client meetings isn’t some outrageous demand it can be a completely valid and legally protected adjustment, especially in high-stress roles.
And that £35k tribunal award? Very much within the norm. Employment tribunals regularly award injury to feelings payouts in that range when employers fail to make reasonable adjustments or treat someone unfairly due to a health condition. The so-called “Vento bands” are the framework used by judges, and yes, £35k is well within the middle-to-upper range. It’s not some fluke or pity payout it reflects real distress and mistreatment.
There’ve been plenty of similar cases too. A woman with anxiety won over £50k after her employer repeatedly failed to support her. Another worker was awarded more than £25k for stress and psychiatric injury. These cases aren’t even rare anymore they reflect a reality that mental health is every bit as valid as physical health when it comes to workplace protections.
So no, it’s not “questionable” when a judge upholds those rights. What’s questionable is dismissing people’s lived experiences just because the impact of their condition isn’t visible to you.

Barclays to pay out nearly £50,000 after ex-banker’s working hours claim

and

Employment tribunal finds woman suffering from anxiety unfairly dismissed from Rape Crisis Scotland | Scottish Legal News

And his CV will soon start telling the story plus when references are gathered.
He needs to grow up and take responsibility for the type of jobs he is applying for.
I would never reject a candidate for being honest prior to a job offer, I would 100% be pissed off for being threatened with tribunal for something I knew nothing about!!

Again, it's immoral and lack of personal responsibility + accountability

Right, but here’s the key difference you’re missing: things like relocation costs or training expenses are often tied to contractual agreements. If someone agrees in writing to repay those if they leave within a set period, that’s fine because it’s an optional benefit with strings attached.
But a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act? Totally different ball game. You cannot attach clawback conditions to a legal obligation. It's not a perk. It's not a favour. It’s the law. If an employer tried to make someone repay the cost of a reasonable adjustment like specialist flooring, adaptive equipment, or support measures that would almost certainly be direct discrimination, victimisation, and possibly constructive dismissal if they tried to enforce it.
And yes, that could absolutely land them in even hotter water at a tribunal. Imagine trying to tell a judge: "We made the adjustment but then tried to charge them for it when they left." That would go down like a lead balloon. There have been cases where employers tried this sort of thing docking wages, threatening costs, or withholding references and the tribunals have not been kind. You’re not just risking compensation for lost earnings, but a bigger injury to feelings payout too.
So no, employers can’t expect a “return on investment” when it comes to accessibility. If the adjustment made it possible for someone to work there in the first place, that’s the entire point. It's not a gift to be paid back it’s the bare legal minimum.

with respect, your actions would lead to a tribunal.
What you're doing now crosses the line into ableist territory accusing someone of being immoral or irresponsible purely because they chose to exercise their legal rights as a disabled person. That kind of language is not only offensive, it’s discriminatory.
Under the Equality Act 2010, a disabled person is under no obligation to disclose their condition during the recruitment process. That legal protection exists precisely because discrimination in hiring is still a very real issue. To suggest that someone is dishonest or lacks personal responsibility for choosing to disclose on day one instead of during interviews shows a complete misunderstanding of the law and of the lived experience of disabled applicants.
Your comment about being “pissed off” at being threatened with a tribunal is revealing. If someone has to resort to legal action, it’s usually because their rights were not upheld, not because they enjoy conflict. Employment Tribunals aren’t punishments they’re there to hold employers accountable when they fail in their legal duties. That’s how the system works.
Furthermore, your suggestion that references or a CV will “start to tell a story” is frankly concerning. It implies either a discriminatory attitude toward future applications or an intent to pass along information that should legally remain confidential. That kind of behaviour could amount to victimisation under the Equality Act and yes, that’s grounds for further legal action.
Disabled people do not need to “grow up.” What they need is fair access to employment, appropriate support in the workplace, and protection from exactly this kind of stigma and gatekeeping. If employers don’t want to end up at tribunal, the solution is straightforward: follow the law.

I absolutely agree that reasonable adjustments should be made, however if a business can't afford to employ 2 people to do 1 job, or if an underfunded local authority would have to cut services to afford to employ a second person to do jobs, it simply doesn't stack up. I think the issue here is the definition of reasonable, and the argument that anyone should be able to do any job.

Say a local authority provides a service, for example healthcare. They have a budget of X. They employ people who need your definition of reasonable adjustments and they double up employees to cover the work. The budget of X now doesn't cover the services they were previously providing. Where's the extra money going to come from or are you advocating for a reduction in services to cover the cost?

SMEs making ends meet to stay in business make up a high proportion of businesses, so how do they afford to double wage costs? Or do they go out of business because they're no longer viable? What about small one person businesses that want to expand, it's hard to employ 1 extra person as you have to be able to cover their wages until they start bringing in income, but now they have to be able to afford to go from 1 to 3 people, because the person they employ might need a second person to help them do the job. Can you envisage employing 2 people to do the job that 1 person could do in your business OP, and perhaps not taking a salary yourself so that you are able to afford to pay them both? Could you afford to do that? Do you think other SMEs could do that?

The adjustments that are viable are dependent on the numbers who need them, if it's a rarity then that makes it more viable to cover, but if you consider that 20% of kids are have additional needs at school (gov figures), 20%+ of adults suffer from mental health problems (Mind) and 24% of working age population were classified as disabled (2023 stats), it's not a rarity.

We all need to play to our strengths, not perpetuate the narritive that we all have a right to do/be/have exactly the same as others.

what exactly do you think a reference is going to say?
References in the UK have to be factual and accurate. Most employers these days provide only the basic information job title, dates of employment, and sometimes a “would rehire” line. That’s it. Anything more, especially if it veers into personal opinion or references protected characteristics like disability or tribunal claims, opens the door to legal consequences.
If an employer were foolish enough to provide a reference saying someone was dismissed or even left under pressure because they needed adjustments the company couldn’t be bothered to make, they’d be handing that former employee the foundation for a second Employment Tribunal claim. That would likely fall under victimisation or even post-employment discrimination, both of which are clearly covered under the Equality Act.
You keep shouting about “personal responsibility,” but disabled people aren’t breaking rules by requesting the support they need to work they’re exercising a legal right. The only people risking serious consequences here are the employers who think they're above the law.
Let’s stop pretending that enforcing your rights is some sort of character flaw. If a company doesn’t want to end up at tribunal, there’s a very simple solution: make reasonable adjustments when asked.

Given that

a) the vast majority of OP's posts on both this and the other reasonable adjustment thread are AI slop;
b) OP's entire family apparently spends their time winning tribunals for the most absurd adjustments imaginable;
c) OP was also responsible for the latest trans in the toilet froth thread

it really does seems to be a case of wind 'em up and watch 'em go.

I think it's immoral to target charities and then spend the money paying a mortgage off yes
I think it's not moral to need such RAs as your uncle but not declare it up front and then contemplate taking yet another employer to tribunal

I believe in personal responsibility and your uncle should not be applying for jobs which don't offer WFH as standard.

So yeh under these reasons I think it's immoral.

I actually agree with you on one key point: reasonable does mean different things depending on the context. What’s reasonable for a global tech company won’t be reasonable for a small independent bakery. The law takes that into account. The Equality Act doesn’t say “make every adjustment, no matter the cost” it says do what’s reasonable, factoring in size, resources, and impact on business operations.
But where I push back is the idea that adjustments automatically mean doubling up roles or taking on unsustainable costs. That’s a bit of a straw man. Most reasonable adjustments aren’t that extreme. They’re things like flexible hours, assistive tech, slight task reallocation, quiet spaces, or minor layout tweaks. They’re often low-cost or even cost-neutral when implemented properly.
In rare cases where a person genuinely can’t carry out core duties even with support, then yes it may be that the role isn’t suitable. But we need to stop framing all adjustments as either unaffordable or disruptive. Often what’s missing isn’t money it’s willingness, creativity, or simply good management.
On public services: if a local authority knows it cannot meet its legal obligations to disabled staff without cutting services, then the issue is the underfunding, not the disabled person. Let’s point the pressure upwards towards central government funding and structural support rather than downwards onto the shoulders of people just trying to work.
You’re right that disability isn’t rare. That’s precisely why we need systemic solutions—not to make everyone do everything equally, but to create workplaces flexible enough to allow more people to play to their strengths, like you said. That doesn't mean ignoring capability or pretending adjustments come without cost but it does mean ensuring that people aren't locked out of work altogether just because they need to do things a little differently.
It’s not about guaranteeing everyone the exact same outcomes. It’s about giving everyone a fair chance.

Grow up. AI bot

You can’t possibly be this naive OP, the reference that would be sent formally would never contain that information no, but you really would have to be born yesterday to think that information wouldn’t be passed on separately, untraceably, and he would never know that was the reason he didn’t get the job.

Especially if you’re talking about jobs within the same industry- people talk. It’s very common to receive a formal reference, the one you would see if you did a SAR, but what you’d never see is the private unrecorded phone call or the chat in the bar, restaurant, gym, golf course, where the rest of the info is shared.

look, I get that you’re upset, but you’re mixing up personal feelings with actual law and unfortunately for you, the latter carries a bit more weight.
Let’s start with the basics. It is entirely legal to apply for a job without disclosing a disability during recruitment. That’s not deceitful, it’s a protected right under the Equality Act 2010. You don’t have to declare anything until day one. Why? Because people with disabilities face documented, proven discrimination in hiring. This isn't speculation it's why so many charities, unions and employment specialists actively advise people not to disclose early.
It’s also legal to request reasonable adjustments after starting a job. That’s literally what the law allows for. People don’t always know what they’ll need in a new environment. And guess what? Sometimes people accept jobs in good faith, thinking things might work and when they don’t, the law is there to protect them, not punish them for trying.
Now, let’s talk about your claim that it’s “immoral” to use a tribunal payout to pay off a mortgage. That’s… quite something. Should we audit what every claimant spends compensation on? Is it only “moral” if they use it for something sad-looking enough to meet your approval? The whole point of compensation is to compensate for stress, harm, loss of income, sometimes damage to mental or physical health. What people do with it is entirely their business. If your big moral objection is that someone made use of money legally awarded to them… well, that says more about your priorities than theirs.
And no, people like my uncle aren’t “targeting” employers. That’s a wildly cynical take. If a person with a disability applies for a job they believe they can do with support they are not responsible for the employer failing to meet their legal obligations. That’s on the employer. If you don’t want to risk a tribunal, the answer is simple: follow the law.
You talk about personal responsibility like it only ever applies to the employee. But what about the employer’s responsibility? To know the law? To treat staff fairly? To listen to Occupational Health? Or are we just selectively moral when it suits?
So yes my uncle has a right to apply for work. He has a right to request adjustments. He has a right to expect not to be penalised or belittled for needing support. And if an employer doesn’t uphold that? Then he has a right to hold them accountable.
If all of that makes you uncomfortable, I suggest you direct that energy at changing employment law. Until then, he’ll keep standing up for his rights. And the law will keep backing him whether you “morally” approve or not.

Trust me I'm not upset.
I can't get upset with AI 😆