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.

Admin tends to be a lower grade (and lower paid) than client facing roles, and much lower stress and responsibility, so again you have the remaining 4 people doing all the stressful work and one person working well below their pay grade.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with reasonable adjustments and have them agreed at my workplace for both physical disability and ND, both of which I declared at my interview.

But I wouldn't expect to do a role that requires much standing, lifting, sitting still for hours etc. due to the physical disability. I did request (and get) a good quality chair made to my needs and a Bluetooth headset so I can stand and walk about during longer calls. I can go for a brief walkabout if I find myself stiffening up at the desk. I can come in a little late on days when I find it difficult physically to get moving in the morning, but in return I work flexi hours and often stay a bit late when something urgent comes up. All these adjustments in my eyes are reasonable, but I wouldn't expect to be allowed to e.g. come in late on my bad days as an adjustment & not make up the time on my good ones leaving my team mates to pick up my slack. I am paid (public sector role so tax payer money) to work a certain number of hours so I do overall, I just have some adjustments around it not being 9-5 every day.

I think what's gone wrong is the balance between which adjustments are reasonable or not, and this should mean reasonable for all. There also needs to be some more defined rules about what classes as a disability; getting a bit anxious about certain tasks e.g. hitting deadlines, talking to strangers, is perfectly normal but you find some people saying they can't do these integral parts of their role because they have stress (usually undiagnosed). So maybe at least a willingness to start the formal diagnosis process should be a requirement if someone needs adjustments for a particular MH issue?

That’s a really fair question, and it highlights the complexity of balancing support with practical business needs especially in smaller workplaces.
Under the Equality Act, severe period pain or symptoms related to menstruation or menopause can meet the legal definition of a disability if the effects are substantial and long-term for example, if they seriously impact someone’s ability to carry out daily activities and last (or are expected to last) at least 12 months. This doesn’t apply to everyone who menstruates, of course but for those with conditions like endometriosis, PMDD, or extreme menopausal symptoms, the law does offer protection and the right to reasonable adjustments at work.
And it’s not just about employers footing the bill alone. There’s something called Access to Work a government scheme that can help cover the cost of adjustments like specialist equipment, taxis to work, or support workers. Many employers (especially SMEs) don’t even realise this exists, but it can make all the difference.
So yes — even something like severe period pain or menopause can legally trigger adjustments, and there’s funding available to help employers make it happen. It’s about fairness, not favouritism no one should have to suffer in silence or risk their job over a health issue they didn’t choose.

And I dont think anyone on these threads is saying this is right and should not be fought against. But not every adjustment is reasonable and not everyone is coming from a place of wanting to work. You dismissed my experiences out of hand, but after 25 years of mostly helping people to get adjustments, its ok for me to also say an increasing number of people are asking for adjustments that are not reasonable (like no night shifts in a job where that is part of it) and expecting to get them.

For my DP, he was bullied and managed out of every job. Prior to his ASD diagnosis, he would end up very depressed and suicidal because he did not know why he was struggling in work environments so much.
WFH has been a game changer for him. He can focus on his work without all the office politics. His contact with others is via email. No small talk... just straight to point and on the task at hand.
Before his WFH job, he was on ESA for a couple of years. He wanted to get back to work, and WFH has allowed him to do so.

I totally get the instinct to want everything to feel fair across a team, but the law doesn’t treat “fair” as everyone doing exactly the same. It treats reasonable adjustments as removing disadvantage for disabled people and sometimes that means making exceptions that others don’t get.
A really good example is the G4S v Powell case. The employee couldn’t continue in his original role due to a disability, so the employer gave him a different, lower-grade job but kept him on the same pay. Later, they tried to reduce his salary to match the new job, and he took them to tribunal. The court ruled in his favour and said that keeping him on the higher pay was a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act.
The point is: if a pay change (or lack of one) is the thing that makes or breaks someone’s ability to keep working, then it can be part of the legal solution. Reasonable doesn’t mean “equal to others” it means “removes the barrier.”
Here’s the judgment if you want to read it:
www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2016/0243_15_2204.html

i'm glad he can work now!

That’s totally fair and I’m really sorry if I came across like I was dismissing your experience earlier. It wasn’t my intention at all. I really do appreciate the work you’ve done supporting people with adjustments over the years, and I get where you're coming from.
You’re absolutely right that not every adjustment is reasonable, and there are cases where the job requirements just can’t be changed. But I think what worries me and what I saw happen with my niece is that some employers don't even try. They say no upfront or make people feel like they’re asking for the moon when really, it might be something simple.
I do feel like a lot of employers now are scared to roll the dice. They’re afraid of saying no even when something genuinely isn’t workable, because they don’t want to risk ending up in court. And I get that tribunal cases can be stressful, expensive, and reputationally damaging. But that fear can also lead to them defaulting to saying yes to some requests without thinking it through or defaulting to no just to shut things down and neither approach really helps anyone.
It’s such a fine balance, and I don’t think there’s always an easy answer. But I’d rather we lean toward inclusion and conversation than people quietly disappearing from jobs they could succeed in with just a bit of support.

If reasonable adjustments go so far as to become a drain on other staff (and in some of the examples given I believe they do), it’s a sure fire way to make employers think twice about hiring disabled people in the first place. And yes I know that’s illegal, but hiring is very subjective and I’m sure there are ways. I get pissed off that because some other disabled people can’t just try to get jobs that actually suit them, rather than trying to bend an entirely unsuitable position to their needs through endless adjustments, it makes it harder for me to be employed in the first place.

That’s a really valid concern, and unfortunately, it’s something a lot of disabled people are all too aware of. It’s exactly why some organisations including disability advocacy groups advise people not to disclose a disability during the recruitment process if it isn’t visibly apparent. Not because they’re trying to be sneaky, but because discrimination at that stage is still very real, even if it’s illegal.
By waiting until day one to disclose, people protect themselves from being unfairly filtered out before they’ve even had a chance to show what they can do. It shouldn’t have to be that way, but it’s a coping strategy people use to level the playing field in a system that often feels rigged against them.
And adjustments aren’t about bending jobs into something completely unrecognisable it’s about removing barriers that stop someone from doing the core parts of the role. If someone genuinely can’t meet the essential requirements even with support, then yes, it might not be the right role. But far too often, people aren’t even given the chance to try.

Same here - have now been working a long time and have seen a significant shift in the sort of adjustments required by employees. Some totally reasonable but the sense of expectation from employees has changed a lot

Ironically we are currently dealing with an issue where employee A is complaining about adjustments made for employee B as they are making her job almost impossible - due to the nature of person B effectively deciding what they can handle on a day by day basis. Person A is significantly physically handicapped and one of our best employees and is now feeling hugely put upon by someone who they feel is taking advantage of the companies desire to help everyone….

Well, we are in agreement then @coffeeandmycats ! I used to do training for a MH institute to help employers make reasonable adjustments - and had more than my fair share of arguments with people who just did not want to bother. I do agree the balance is more in that direction than anything else. And that is a criminal waste of talent.

But I have also just left general MH after 25 years because the level of entitlement I encountered every day was making me hate my job. I did not go to work to provide reality checks for people who were being completely unreasonable. It makes me sad as I loved most of my clients. But the small but very vocal (and likely to complain) minority made it unbearable.

As someone who uses screen reader software and researched the options and costs myself before starting my new role we both know you have made a massive exaggeration on the price of the software here. He also may very well have needed a PA, but not one who could also code, he didn't loose all his knowledge with his eyesight!

You also fail to mention you can claim with access to work for these costs.

This kind of post is really disingenuous.

At the rate we’re going with costs being loaded on to employers- NI increase, expansion of worker’s rights, employers won’t be employing anyone able or disabled. AI is looking very attractive.

I think that reasonable adjustments are all well and good, but the law says that is must also be reasonable for the employer.

We have an employee with a physical disability, who works drastically reduced hours, only comes in the office once a week, in a fairly critical role. We have no other roles for them to move into and they call in sick at least once or twice a month and finishes work early at least twice a week. They definitely prioritise home over work, if they are doing something at the weekend they can't come in during the week as they are conserving energy. It's amazing how often they have been ill during the week and then photos are posted over the weekend of then out and about until all hours.

The work they don't do, causes issues for the rest of our smallish team and quite frankly is causing a lot of mumbling and grumbling. We have bent over backwards to accommodate this person, they are not doing themselves any favours and of course if you say anything all of a sudden you are accused of being discriminatory.

Actually if any other person was performing in this way, they would be on a performance improvement plan.

I'm not unsympathetic, but some people are properly taking the piss and as with all things it's the odd one or two who gives everyone else a bad reputation!

You're right, op. I worked in a school and couldn't even get an accommodation of a 10min break because I worked a 6h shift

In my office, it is an unspoken rule that if somebody requests reasonable adjustments, they will be refused and used as a way to manage the person out. I have physical disabilities, and the culture in the office is that if you have limitations you go out of your way to show that they don't affect you. So I have to make sure I am first to arrive and last to leave, and never mention my disability or show any Inkling of the pain that I am in. I would imagine that my employer is in no way uncommon, and that most people realise that reasonable adjustments only exist on paper.

employment tribunal time my friend

With the gov plans to cut disability benefits, and get the long term sick and disabled back into work.... this will only work if employers give reasonable adjustments to those that need them.
However, someone who has been off sick for years will most likely only be able to do entry level/NMW work, and employers don't tend to bend over backwards for the "right" employee in that case, as they have their pick out of 100s.

Yep, same. I know I can work 4 days. 2 days, a rest day, then 2 days and the weekend, due to the fatigue and pain caused by my disability. When I worked full time I was taking sick days often, now they are rare, I am productive when I am working and can balance my health and my job. I claim PIP and that makes up some if the difference between working 4 days and full time. It wouldnt be appropriate for me to be paid 5 days for 4 days work, as you say, thete is no spare capacity, if someone isn't doing their allocated proportion of the work it means others face more pressure or the business or service users suffer. Yes, there should absolutely be reasonable adjustments such as access, flexible working patterns, technology support such as talk to type, which still mean the work gets done effectively. Yes, regular breaks if needed but the total hours of work need to be the same.

That sounds absolutely awful OP, and sadly not unusual. But just so you're aware that kind of culture isn’t just toxic, it’s illegal.
If your employer has this "unspoken rule" of refusing adjustments and using it as a way to manage people out, that's a clear breach of the Equality Act. And yes, people can and do win at tribunal over this.
If someone with a disability asks for adjustments and then ends up performance-managed, sidelined, or sacked, it’s completely fair to take that to an Employment Tribunal. Judges can even order the company to hand over emails, stats, internal records basically any proof that shows a pattern. If they’ve done it to others too, it paints a very clear picture.
And tribunals do notice patterns. If every time someone requests adjustments, they end up out the door, that’s more than coincidence. That’s potentially discrimination.
I know people are scared to rock the boat, but honestly, that’s exactly how employers get away with it. This is why more disabled people should be taking it to tribunal even just starting a case sometimes makes employers panic and settle.
Document everything. Keep records. You don't need to be sacked to have a case even the refusal alone can be enough. The law is supposed to be on your side.

I doubt many people would argue that if reasonable adjustments can keep a person in their job, that's the right thing to do. The problem is that we don't all agree on what exactly is 'reasonable'. We may not agree with the law's definition of it.

I think more people should take personal responsibility. As some PP have said, we all have our limits of what we can or should try to do for work, and that changes with age and illness. If we're no longer able to do our job without huge allowances being made, maybe that's no longer the right job for us. We should reduce our hours or find something else we are capable of doing. That may not be what the law says, but it's common sense and the dignified, self-respecting approach, in my opinion.

I have a young relative who was forced to do constant night shifts - indirectly because of his disability. (He was diagnosed with Asperger's, as it was then called.)

This young man did his job very well, enjoyed his work...tended to stay at home and not socialise otherwise - so no partner and/or children.

He was told that because he was single, others had to be given preference when it came to shifts. Nonsense, of course. They were obviously taking advantage of the fact that he's "quiet" and tends not to argue with people. (His dad was very much the same, only he never had a diagnosis. He only ever sees close family members and the small circle of friends that he knew as a boy.)

He sorted it himself. He hadn't taken any of his holiday leave (one of the reasons given as supporting the idea that he was fine with constant nightshift, bizarrely), so he told his manager that he was taking all of his accrued leave together - 6 weeks in total. The manager wasn't happy, but my relative had checked the rules regarding leave.

He went job hunting. He was offered the same job; different firm.

He phoned his manager and told him that he was giving his 4 wks notice. The manager wasn't happy, but could do nothing about it.

My relative has done very well for himself at the new firm. He's since bought his own home. He goes to work; goes home. He's content.

And that's 1 reason why AI is increasing and pushing actual humans out of jobs. AI doesn't take employers to tribunal and it doesn't need RA.
All these jobs you are demanding RA for could probably be done by AI.

In your Nieces example, what was the job?

Would you have preferred they went through with someone reading the question interview, then didn't give her the job because they knew they'd have to make the adjustments permanently? You can't really appeal who is appointed after an interview.

I'd worry that employers (especially SMEs) will stop employing anyone with a disability because they don't want to face a tribunal.