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.

Oh don’t worry I’m not naïve. I’m well aware that informal chats and whispered warnings happen behind the scenes. And yes, in small industries, people talk. But here’s the thing: just because something is common doesn’t mean it’s legal or without consequences.
If a former employer quietly slags someone off because they exercised their legal rights like asking for reasonable adjustments or taking a claim to tribunal that’s called victimisation. And if that chatter can be linked to a lost job opportunity, you’d better believe a claim can be made for that too. It’s happened. Tribunals are increasingly alive to this kind of behaviour, and if someone does a subject access request and spots a pattern, or if a recruiter or manager happens to document a comment they shouldn’t have made, suddenly that “untraceable” whisper isn’t so safe after all.

Cafe must be quiet today.

?

I only work 3 days a week, as a part owner of the cafe.

I’m not talking small industries, I’m talking some of the biggest of the big.

And really, the only thing you’d be able to show is that he stopped getting job offers. Poor interview technique, candidate with more experience, candidate that was better overall, panel marking, you could do any access request you like, that’s all you’d see.

I’ve spent years watching exactly this, my manager has spent even more years watching exactly this. You know how many employers we, as a firm, have seen successfully pulled? Zero. The ones that do get pulled weren’t particularly careful, email trails, recruiter comments noted, Teams messages, but the big dogs aren’t those people.

There’s nothing to see, you can put through any request you like, they can hand everything over, there’s not a single thing to find so it is cheerfully handed over with a smile and a “good luck”.

All that’s going to happen to your uncle is he will one day find he mysteriously stops getting job offers.

Oh, I see we’ve gone from “this is how it works in small industries” to “even the biggest of the big do it, and get away with it.” That’s not a defence, it’s just a description of a system that protects itself badly and a worrying level of comfort with that fact.
You’re right about one thing: the most careful employers do cover their tracks better. But again, being hard to prove doesn’t make something legal. It just makes it unethical and legally risky especially in a world where one careless message, one HR note, one recruiter’s memory of a side comment can unravel the whole performance. And frankly, the more people who’ve “spent years watching” this happen without challenging it, the more complicit they are in letting that culture continue.
Let’s also not pretend that subject access requests are the only option. There are whistleblowers, leaked emails, witnesses, former colleagues, and (in some cases) trends so obvious that pattern evidence starts to emerge. Tribunals don’t require you to catch someone red-handed in a smoking gun moment they assess the balance of probabilities. And if a disabled person consistently gets interviews but no offers, and worked somewhere known for pushing back on tribunal claims, yes, a claim for post-employment victimisation or discrimination in recruitment could absolutely be brought.
If “the big dogs” are really operating in this shady grey zone as confidently as you suggest, then I hope they’re ready when one of them finally slips. Because it always starts with “no one’s ever challenged us” right up until someone does and wins.
What’s truly telling here is that you’re not defending fairness. You’re just defending the idea that it’s all a bit pointless because “they’ll get away with it.” That’s not realism that’s resignation. And frankly, I’d rather be the one still pushing back than the one normalising bad behaviour because it’s been happening for years.
If your prediction is that my uncle won’t get more job offers because he stood up for his rights, then all you’re really doing is proving why the tribunal was justified in the first place.

I’m not an OT or podiatrist but I’m genuinely surprised that any OT would recommend someone with neuropathy going barefoot in a busy environment full of hazards and especially outside. I have nerve damage to upper and lower limbs and the last thing I’d want to do is to is risk further nerve damage because the lack of sensation and other problems mean that I am more likely to injure myself than your average person. When not wearing my braces I hit my hand against something at least 10 times a day. Often 20 because of my neuropathy.

Yes you may need specialist shoes or to wear slippers but going barefoot when you have neuropathy is just madness because it will result in further injuries which will only worsen the neuropathy. It’ll likely lead to skin breakdown, cuts and grazes and even fractures of the toes. It’d be the last thing that I’d be doing unless I’m sitting still or in a safe familiar environment. This is especially true of diabetic neuropathy where doing this could result in amputation.

I personally think we should turn this thread in to a drinking game. Take a swig every time OP mentions The Equality Act. We will be pissed in no time and maybe even start finding this thread funny

I am funding it quits funny as is tbh.
There is OP............then 1 million miles away is reality. Never the twain shall meet

What about the teetotalers…? Can they sue under The Equality act for being excluded from this game..?! (Said tongue in cheek).

Thanks for your concern. Just to clarify my uncle has been barefoot due to his disability since his late 20s, and he’s now over 60. Every employer he’s worked for until now has accepted it as a reasonable adjustment, including in busy environments. He also travels on buses and trains barefoot with no issue, and he carries a letter from his doctor explaining the medical basis and why it’s necessary. What works for one person with neuropathy won’t work for another it’s very individual.
There was one incident on a train where a woman and her children took issue with his bare feet. She began filming him and shouting abuse, making him feel unsafe and targeted. My uncle pulled the emergency cord to halt the train and contacted the police. Officers attended, and ultimately he was able to continue his journey in peace after the woman and her family were removed from the train. That aside, he's had very few problems over the years.
He also has diagnosed autism, which means he sees the world in a very black-and-white way. He’s straightforward, literal, and follows rules to the letter but that doesn't mean he deserves to be singled out or victimised. His needs and behaviour come from how his brain is wired, and he has every right to be treated with dignity, just like anyone else.

Why doesn’t it trump someone’s personal squeamishness? You say you don’t need a medical diagnosis for things like anxiety to have reasonable adjustments put in place.

someone’s bare feet in an office with me would be hugely off putting to me. I hate bare feet. I like being inside an office where people have their feet covered. Bare feet next to me would stress me out because I’m so squeamish about them. They could cause anxiety in people and impact work. Those people shouldn’t have to be in discomfort because your uncle doesn’t want to wear any type of footwear at all. His needs don’t trump the needs of others. As you say, a medical diagnosis isn’t necessary. So why do you think his needs trump other people’s??

Ah, classic bit of mockery when the legal rights make people uncomfortable.
But just so we're clear (and since you brought it up) yes, if being excluded from a social or work-related activity like a drinking game had a genuine link to a protected characteristic say, teetotalism for religious reasons, or addiction recovery, or even a disability-related reason and it created a hostile or isolating environment, then yes, it could actually fall under the Equality Act.
Obviously this thread isn’t a workplace, but in real life? Employers and organisations do have a duty to make sure social inclusion doesn’t hinge on alcohol. So the sarcastic question accidentally landed on something very real.
Now, shall we carry on or do we need to set up an Access to Drinking Game scheme? Juice options available, of course.

The Equality Act? What year?

That would be an incredible support to our small business. I think k people underestimate just how stressful running a small business is these days.

I think you're conflating a strong personal preference with a legal obligation. There’s a very big difference between not liking something and having a disability that makes it medically or physically painful to do it.
Your squeamishness is valid as a feeling but it’s not legally equivalent to someone needing a reasonable adjustment due to a disability. The Equality Act 2010 protects people from discrimination based on disability, not from discomfort due to other people's adjustments. If someone had a clinically recognised condition (e.g. a phobia or sensory processing disorder) that made them genuinely unable to work near bare feet, they too could request an adjustment and the employer would have to consider both needs and find a balance.
But here's the thing: being “put off” by feet isn't discrimination, even if it makes you uncomfortable. Working in shared spaces means encountering all sorts of things you might not like strong perfume, loud eaters, nervous tics, mobility aids. We don’t remove people from jobs for those things, and we shouldn’t remove disabled people either.
Your discomfort doesn't have to be dismissed but neither does someone’s disability get downgraded to a “preference” just because it inconveniences others. The law exists precisely to protect people from being excluded because their bodies or needs don't fit the standard mould.
No one’s saying your feelings don’t matter but they don’t get to override someone’s right to work without pain.

But correcting systemic inequality is not the ‘entire point’. The ‘entire point’ is subjective and views will differ from person to person, and at political level from party to party.

To my mind, the ‘entire point’ is:

• Macro economic stability, so businesses can thrive and the government can provide essential services (including security) through taxation.
• Individual opportunity, including through making reasonable adjustments those with disabilities but always based on capacity and merit. I suspect like most, I am more amenable to making adjustments in cases where these actually enable someone to function in line with the expectations of their job, rather than just normalising underperformance.

I'm a business owner myself I know how hard it can be trust me, but people need to follow the law.

If he's been barefoot for 40 years, why did he need 3 weeks of foam flooring?

Bet you are a laugh a minute OP.

Take it you've signed up to be 1 of Raynor's banter police?

Does your cat cafe have any employees?

I agree that views will differ, especially when we’re talking about the “big picture.” But inclusion and economic stability aren’t at odds with each other. They depend on one another. A functioning economy isn’t just about the top line it’s also about ensuring people can participate in it fully, fairly, and legally.
Reasonable adjustments exist to stop people from being shut out of employment altogether not to let anyone “underperform” scot-free. No one’s arguing that jobs should be handed out regardless of capability. But capability isn’t fixed, and it isn’t always visible. That’s why the law requires employers to look at whether someone can do a role with adjustments, not just whether they tick a rigid checklist. It’s about potential and equity, not just paper qualifications or an exact replication of someone else’s path.
And when someone loses the ability to perform their original job through no fault of their own, offering a redeployment opportunity they can succeed in is not favouritism it’s the legal and ethical thing to do. Yes, others may have “earned” it through traditional routes. But if the alternative is pushing a disabled person out of work entirely? Then the adjustment isn't an unfair boost it’s a lifeline.
This idea that we must all be judged by identical standards, regardless of barriers, isn’t meritocracy it’s gatekeeping dressed up as fairness. Real fairness means recognising that some people face more obstacles than others and adjusting accordingly. That’s not weakness. That’s civilisation.
And frankly, the country doesn’t suffer because we support disabled people. It suffers when we waste talent, ignore lived experience, and act like empathy is some sort of threat to efficiency.

He didn't ask for it, the company just did it.

yes, we employee a variety of people including family and friends.

I would imagine just the cats.
Reasonable adjustments include scratching posts, dreamies and the freedom to bite customers whenever they see fit.