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.

It's a difficult decision but legally they have to Ty and accommodate everyone I suppose.

Obviously eventually they can't.

Arguably they could re deploy them to other forces etc but t is complicated.

Its utopia and not practical.

But then is that “fair”? 4 people who are all picking up the extra work for that 1 person, but all being paid the same wage?

I think it all boils down to what is 'reasonable' - asking an employer with 3 employees in one office to provide a quiet room? Probably not. But a multi national with 400 people working on one site? Probably yes. Asking an employer if you can 'shuffle' tasks when there's no one qualified to do your role? Absolutely not.

Oh well 🤷

What did you do before wfh became a thing? Very few people before Covid actually worked from home. How many years have you been working in the office? I see a lot of people self diagnosing with autism or MH issues in order to push for wfh, despite them having worked in the office for years with no apparent issues.

Generally the work you are asking other employees OP to pick up is more stressful and complex. While the disabled person gets the less stressful and easy tasks.

That’s not how the law works businesses don’t get to ignore the Equality Act just because it’s inconvenient. The duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees isn’t optional and doesn’t depend on whether someone is “vital” to the business in your opinion. It applies as long as the adjustment removes a disadvantage and is proportionate to the organisation’s size and resources.
Plenty of tribunal rulings have confirmed that allowing breaks, adjusting duties, or even modifying hours are reasonable not because the employee is a “unicorn,” but because they have a disability that requires support to stay in work. The law exists precisely because businesses wouldn’t do it otherwise.
If a company wants the right to operate, it takes on responsibilities including the legal obligation not to discriminate. If that’s too much to ask, they’re not fit to be employers.

And if you still think paid breaks are some kind of luxury perk, tribunals have literally upheld them as reasonable adjustments. Take the Peloton Interactive UK case — an autistic concierge won his claim because he was denied paid, unscheduled breaks when overwhelmed by sensory triggers like noise and lighting. The tribunal agreed that those breaks were necessary for him to function in the role, and Peloton’s refusal to adjust cost them dearly.
So yeah paid breaks aren’t “taking the piss.” They’re a legally backed way of keeping disabled staff in work and protecting employers from legal trouble. If your business model can’t stretch to a few short breaks without falling apart, the problem isn’t the disabled person it’s your planning.

https://redmans.co.uk/insights/autistic-peloton-employee-reasonable-adjustments-employment-tribunal-claim/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

But it is a problem isnt it? Someone training to be a clinical psychologist, who says they cant be around things that might trigger them, or a police officer who has to stay away from conflict is in a job they cant realistically do.

OP made the point that employers should not have to just give any adjustment that is requested. This is where the problem comes, ime. Too many people seem to think if an adjustment is requested it must be given. I dont think it is just a work thing - it seems more and more common that people feel that they should be given whatever they want.

It does not help the vast majority of people who are disabled and want to work, but need some assistance to do so.

I used to see people like this - they would walk in demanding letters to say they could not work or needed adjustments because of anxiety. I would ask what they had done to treat their anxiety or what other adjustments they had considered. And people would get really aggressive. I have all the time in the world for people who are genuinely trying and who really want to work and need support. Or who tried and cannot. But as the PP who is an employment lawyer said, the bar is set far too low, and it is causing massive problems.

It’s a common misconception that someone has to have a formal diagnosis to be protected under the Equality Act. In reality, self-diagnosis can be valid, especially when access to assessments is limited which is often the case with autism, ADHD, or mental health conditions where waiting lists can be years long.
What matters legally isn’t whether you’ve got a piece of paper it’s whether you have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term negative effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. That’s the legal test, not “has a diagnosis from a consultant.” Many people working under the radar with unrecognised conditions only start asking for help after years of masking or deteriorating health and that’s not “faking it,” that’s burnout catching up.
Employers are still required to consider reasonable adjustments if the person meets the legal definition of disability diagnosed or not. So yes, self-identification can absolutely be the start of a valid and lawful workplace adjustment conversation.

It does boil down to what's reasonable. Same in classrooms. You can't meet everyone's needs all the time. At some point, people have to learn to rub along with one another and tolerate each other.

Reasonable is having an individual room for parents evening because the background noise is difficult to hear over.

Unfortunately a lot of the adjustments perceived as unreasonable are for invisible disabilities. There are some chancers out there, meaning people truly disabled by an invisible disability get lumped in with the fakers.

The bar isn’t “set too low” it’s set where it needs to be to protect people who’ve been historically excluded from work. The Equality Act doesn’t say every adjustment must be granted, only those that are reasonable. That means employers must consider the adjustment seriously not automatically dismiss it just because it’s inconvenient or unfamiliar.
Yes, some jobs can't be adjusted safely no one is saying a firefighter with uncontrolled epilepsy should be on the front line. But for the vast majority of jobs, including high-pressure ones, there are creative, lawful ways to make roles inclusive without compromising performance or safety. It’s not about “giving people whatever they want” it’s about removing barriers that others don’t face.
And pushing the idea that too many people are asking for support without “proving they deserve it” is a dangerous path. Many people with conditions like anxiety, autism, or trauma have been coping quietly for years they ask for adjustments only when it’s unsustainable to continue without them. Demanding to see “what they’ve done to treat it” before believing them reinforces stigma and ignores how slow and inaccessible diagnosis and treatment pathways can be.
Disability rights aren’t about giving people an unfair advantage they’re about recognising that equality doesn’t mean treating everyone the same, it means ensuring people aren’t excluded by default. Reasonable adjustments are the law, not a favour.

I honestly think there should be national campaigns encouraging disabled people to take their employer to tribunal if they’re dismissed without adjustments or pushed out for disability-related reasons. So many people just accept unfair treatment or quietly leave because they don’t know their rights or they’re made to feel like a burden for asking.
If more people challenged this properly through the Employment Tribunal system, employers might finally start taking their legal duties seriously. Reasonable adjustments aren’t optional, and disability discrimination is illegal but too many companies gamble that people won’t fight back.
Awareness matters. It shouldn't just be left to individuals to know the law we need public messaging that empowers disabled workers to stand up for themselves, and shows employers that cutting corners could cost them.

put simply, if every time a disabled person was dismissed when adjustments were not made even if only 20% of these succeeded in court it would make a huge difference and employers would be keener to support disabled staff.

Should individuals who are capable of working and applying for suitable jobs, but face challenges due to disabilities, rely on state benefits to avoid being a burden, even though people may resent paying taxes to support them and label them as lazy or scroungers?

It sounds like a toxic workplace, that was stressful for all worker, nd or not, if they didn’t toe the party line.

no everyone should be able to work!

Honestly I disagree that this would make employers more keen to support disabled staff. The more likely outcome is that employers go fuck that, not worth the hassle, and are even less likely to employ disabled staff in the first place.

I have chronic fatigue as a cancer survivor and struggled in my old job. I slept all weekend, every weekend. I now WFH for 60% of my former salary in a different job. It means I can rest during the day because I manage my own workload. I have lost a huge chunk of my pension entitlement and don’t claim any disability benefits. There was no family history of cancer and the diagnosis came out of nowhere in my mid-30s.

Cancer, a brain injury, a car crash, epilepsy are just a few examples of ways to become disabled that could happen to anyone tomorrow. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

what about adjustments for things like bad periods or menopause? I have struggled my whole life with terrible pain and nausea- I’ve had to soldier on. I’d be curious OP if you think employers should be forced to make reasonable adjustments for pretty much all women at one time or another?

I do think employers should do their best but having worked for small companies most of my career we often have very little cash to spare so any reasonable adjustment could be the difference of a person losing their job or not. Big corporations can easily swallow the cost but many smaller SmE’s can’t.

i wonder if you can tell me what was right wrong in this scenario (genuine question btw as this one we had a lot of back and forth on)

member of team ND and physician health condition moves house. They state they can no longer work in their usual office because they’ve moved house l. They previously lived closer and could walk but now it’s too far away and the bus routes are too much for their ND. Their request was that the small business paid a taxi there and back each day or they worked from home. If they worked from home another person would need to be employed to ensure that the parts of the role was fulfilled in person. Company couldn’t afford that nor the taxi so declined the request.

they could be redeployed but didn’t want to

But I stand by my experience of dealing with people who just wanted to stay on benefits or who wanted full time pay for part time work.

I have supported many people to get reasonable adjustments due to MH and Autism. I have no problem with that. But I have also seen the opposite and it is the people in that category who are a problem.

No one would dispute (I hope) that disabled people are disadvantaged to find and keep employment and that a fair society would support people with that. Or that upholding the law is doing someone a favour.

I have spent my working life advocating for people to get help and support to get and keep employment. But not all the people claiming anxiety, autism or MH conditions are doing so from good intention or honestly. Or even from a realistic position. And therein lies the problem.

The moment that got me into disability rights wasn’t some grand legal case it was watching my niece get discriminated against over a job interview.
She has dyslexia, and when she applied for a role at a tiny seven-person company, she made a simple, lawful request: to have someone sit in on the interview to read the written questions aloud. She didn’t want help answering, just to access the same information as everyone else in a way that worked for her.
They flat-out refused. Told her if she couldn’t do it like everyone else, maybe she wasn’t a good fit. No attempt to adjust. No understanding. Just outright exclusion.
She took them to tribunal. They tried to play hardball right up until the day before the hearing when they offered her £15,000 to settle. Because deep down, they knew. They knew they hadn’t even tried to do the right thing, and the law was on her side.
The company folded two years later. Maybe not because of her case, but honestly, if a business can’t grasp the basics of equality, it probably had bigger issues.
Watching all that play out lit a fire under me. I realised how many disabled people get pushed out quietly, gaslit into thinking their needs are “too much” when really, the law says otherwise. That one case showed me just how broken things are, and how powerful knowing your rights can be.
That’s why I speak up now. Because no one should be denied opportunity for needing support and no one should have to fight alone to get it.

Employers have had to make reasonable adjustments in the form of maternity leave for decades, because men can’t get pregnant or give birth.

Sounds awful, I genuinely think they should be able to be got out on capability grounds. I used to have a colleague like this and capability proceedings were started. Funnily enough their “reasonable adjustments” that they wanted was to not do any of the harder/not as nice parts of the job. Which would have meant their colleagues had to do those parts of the job all the time. Hardly fair on those expected to pick up the slack!