Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Work

Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.

Original poster

Possible disability discrimination - let it go?

107 replies

DarkMoonShine · 27/03/2026 00:12

I feel like I’ve been discriminated against at work due to my disability:
I’ve been denied most reasonable adjustments (recommended by OH) on the basis that it wouldn’t be fair to other team members.
Another reasonable adjustment that was agreed upon is not consistently stuck to

And now I’ve had unkind remarks made to me about my disability - this is the thing that has upset me the most.
I’m not sure how to move forward, I worry that making a complaint will make everything worse and I can’t afford to lose my job. But not saying anything is causing anxiety as I don’t want to have to face co-workers.
Am I better off just letting this go?

OP posts:
pollymere · 28/03/2026 22:09

They are breaking the law. You have the Autism Act on your side as well as the Equalities Act. You have a legal right to Reasonable Adjustments. Don't feel embarrassed or ashamed. I would suggest getting someone to sit in the meetings as an Advocate. It doesn't matter what your role is. Your Advocate could be someone from your Union.

I don't think your Reasonable Adjustments are exceptional. And of course it "isn't fair" to your colleagues. The whole point is to ensure you can do your job properly. Do they not provide lifts for people in wheelchairs either? And perhaps remind them that people with ASD usually are more efficient at tasks so your colleagues probably don't work as well you — that "isn't fair" you get more work done than them but are paid the same. Oh... And do check you are paid the same. People with disabilities including Autism are frequently paid less for the same role.

If they won't follow advice from OH that actually means it's not safe for you to work there and you should be able to be off work on full pay until it's resolved...

PoppinjayPolly · 28/03/2026 22:47

pollymere · 28/03/2026 22:09

They are breaking the law. You have the Autism Act on your side as well as the Equalities Act. You have a legal right to Reasonable Adjustments. Don't feel embarrassed or ashamed. I would suggest getting someone to sit in the meetings as an Advocate. It doesn't matter what your role is. Your Advocate could be someone from your Union.

I don't think your Reasonable Adjustments are exceptional. And of course it "isn't fair" to your colleagues. The whole point is to ensure you can do your job properly. Do they not provide lifts for people in wheelchairs either? And perhaps remind them that people with ASD usually are more efficient at tasks so your colleagues probably don't work as well you — that "isn't fair" you get more work done than them but are paid the same. Oh... And do check you are paid the same. People with disabilities including Autism are frequently paid less for the same role.

If they won't follow advice from OH that actually means it's not safe for you to work there and you should be able to be off work on full pay until it's resolved...

What? Are you qualified to give any of that ‘advice’?

Bigbiggirlinabigbigworld · 28/03/2026 22:54

pollymere · 28/03/2026 22:09

They are breaking the law. You have the Autism Act on your side as well as the Equalities Act. You have a legal right to Reasonable Adjustments. Don't feel embarrassed or ashamed. I would suggest getting someone to sit in the meetings as an Advocate. It doesn't matter what your role is. Your Advocate could be someone from your Union.

I don't think your Reasonable Adjustments are exceptional. And of course it "isn't fair" to your colleagues. The whole point is to ensure you can do your job properly. Do they not provide lifts for people in wheelchairs either? And perhaps remind them that people with ASD usually are more efficient at tasks so your colleagues probably don't work as well you — that "isn't fair" you get more work done than them but are paid the same. Oh... And do check you are paid the same. People with disabilities including Autism are frequently paid less for the same role.

If they won't follow advice from OH that actually means it's not safe for you to work there and you should be able to be off work on full pay until it's resolved...

You seem to misunderstand a lot of areas you are advising on. This is not correct.

PollyBell · 28/03/2026 23:01

pollymere · 28/03/2026 22:09

They are breaking the law. You have the Autism Act on your side as well as the Equalities Act. You have a legal right to Reasonable Adjustments. Don't feel embarrassed or ashamed. I would suggest getting someone to sit in the meetings as an Advocate. It doesn't matter what your role is. Your Advocate could be someone from your Union.

I don't think your Reasonable Adjustments are exceptional. And of course it "isn't fair" to your colleagues. The whole point is to ensure you can do your job properly. Do they not provide lifts for people in wheelchairs either? And perhaps remind them that people with ASD usually are more efficient at tasks so your colleagues probably don't work as well you — that "isn't fair" you get more work done than them but are paid the same. Oh... And do check you are paid the same. People with disabilities including Autism are frequently paid less for the same role.

If they won't follow advice from OH that actually means it's not safe for you to work there and you should be able to be off work on full pay until it's resolved...

Is this a really breaking the law or mn breaking the law because that is just what people say but have really no idea?

The only advice should be seek proper legal advice

Doggymummar · 28/03/2026 23:12

My oh is autistic and his reasonable adjustment is he works from home can you ask for that rathe4 than not doing parts of your job? This was all sorted out with th3 union rep and works well. Sometimes he feels able to go in, I think the las5 time was about three years ago. He has a day scheduled in May but on the day it may be too much.

PinkFrogss · 28/03/2026 23:15

@pollymere The autism act has nothing to do with this. And these is nothing to say OP is doing more work than her colleagues, she’d look ridiculous to try and bring that up. OH advice is not legally binding and does not mean it is unsafe for OP to work there, or she has a legal entitlement to fully paid time off.

I know the board is open to everyone but I really wish people wouldn’t post nonsense advice that will just make the OP’s life harder and create even more problems.

RawBloomers · 29/03/2026 00:21

In some ways it does sound like the site visits are a part of the job and that in someways you seem to be saying you aren’t capable of the job. Especially since you’ve avoided doing the visits for 6 months and now just want it taken off your plate. But it’s not clear if that’s the case or if the off site visit is a task unrelated to the job as a whole (For instance, is the experience of the offsite visit supposed to inform the way you do other aspects of your job? Does it involve seeing how the work you do impacts your clients or others? Or talking to people who have expertise in areas that impact your other work? I don’t mean that that is the point of the visits, I’m just wondering if that is an aspect of them and you not going on the visits would mean you worked in a more isolated way with the same visibility as others. Why are people doing your job the ones who do these site visits?). What has happened when you don’t do a visit you are slated for? Do they have to go ahead, or is it something that can be postponed until someone is around? I’m wondering if they need everyone to be capable of them so that they can be sure of covering something that’s essential?

I understand the focus by most people on this thread on the possibility that site visits are a burden for staff (and they might well be if those not on a site visit can work from home), but it also sounds like there might be plenty of volunteers to do them if some people didn’t want to. So I’m wondering if the “unfairness” is actually about something else.

And the other thing they turned down - you doing a particular task 3 times a week instead of 2, seems like an odd adjustment. How would doing it 3 times a week help? How are the people who do it 3 times currently chosen? Do you get something out of it that others might also appreciate?

It’s not possible for us to know if the management reasoning is based on reasonable concerns about asking people to cover your offsite visits or on a prejudice about your disability not being “deserving” of the adjustment and dislike of staff being able to ask for accommodation. That’s certainly something that has happened in businesses, so I wouldn’t discount it. But if you want to challenge that you’ll need to be very clear about what there reasoning is to make sure you don’t waste time and money on something you can’t win.

The remarks could well be bullying on the basis of a protected characteristic though, and your management should come down hard on that immediately or you will have a good case against them.

FuckaboutFindout · 29/03/2026 08:18

Omg do not do what @pollymere suggests and tell them you are better at your job than others

Ive read through your Op again

Inform your line manager about the comments and that they are to cease or HR will be informed
Ask for a reminder to be sent about the missed adjustment

As for the offsite visit, why can this not be managed with support?
If you go into the office weekly then why is an offsite visit an issue?

Why does doing an extra task each week fall under adjustment?

Honestly- it reads like you dont like the offsite visits but like the extra task and neither of these things come under the disability act

Original poster
DarkMoonShine · 29/03/2026 08:36

Seems like most people think adjustments are not reasonable - and if that’s the case I’m happy to be corrected.

To clarify a few points:
When I first started the role the offsite visits were the sole responsibility of one staff member. They then went on maternity leave and the visits were divided up between the team. They are now back from maternity leave but it was decided that having the visits shared across the team was a better idea.
No one has childcare issues, the staff member who went on maternity has a partner who is a stay at home parent and everyone else either has no children or teen/adult children.
I’m not comfortable going to the office but I am able to manage it because it’s a predictable environment. The offsite visits are very unpredictable and that’s what I can’t cope with

The two task/three task thing: I wasn’t clear here. Essentially we all rotate around three tasks, they are very very similar and there isn’t a universally disliked task. I’m sure people have their preferences but it varies across the team.
I currently do Task A once, Task B twice, and Task C twice (I used to do B once and C three times). I want to do Task C three times and stop Task A altogether. I say Task C because looking at the rota this would result in the least impact upon other staff members not because I prefer C
My reason for this is Task A has a lot of changing/adapting processes. I struggle with these constant changes due to my autism.

I’m generally considered to be good at my job and I make the fewest errors in the team because I have excellent attention to detail.

The comment made wasn’t anything to do with sick leave or the way I work. I was basically told I’m considered weird by the team due to the way I communicate.

OP posts:
Soontobe60 · 29/03/2026 08:38

So who has told you you’re weird?

Original poster
DarkMoonShine · 29/03/2026 08:40

Soontobe60 · 29/03/2026 08:38

So who has told you you’re weird?

My line manager told me

OP posts:
Ineffable23 · 29/03/2026 08:47

RawBloomers · 29/03/2026 00:21

In some ways it does sound like the site visits are a part of the job and that in someways you seem to be saying you aren’t capable of the job. Especially since you’ve avoided doing the visits for 6 months and now just want it taken off your plate. But it’s not clear if that’s the case or if the off site visit is a task unrelated to the job as a whole (For instance, is the experience of the offsite visit supposed to inform the way you do other aspects of your job? Does it involve seeing how the work you do impacts your clients or others? Or talking to people who have expertise in areas that impact your other work? I don’t mean that that is the point of the visits, I’m just wondering if that is an aspect of them and you not going on the visits would mean you worked in a more isolated way with the same visibility as others. Why are people doing your job the ones who do these site visits?). What has happened when you don’t do a visit you are slated for? Do they have to go ahead, or is it something that can be postponed until someone is around? I’m wondering if they need everyone to be capable of them so that they can be sure of covering something that’s essential?

I understand the focus by most people on this thread on the possibility that site visits are a burden for staff (and they might well be if those not on a site visit can work from home), but it also sounds like there might be plenty of volunteers to do them if some people didn’t want to. So I’m wondering if the “unfairness” is actually about something else.

And the other thing they turned down - you doing a particular task 3 times a week instead of 2, seems like an odd adjustment. How would doing it 3 times a week help? How are the people who do it 3 times currently chosen? Do you get something out of it that others might also appreciate?

It’s not possible for us to know if the management reasoning is based on reasonable concerns about asking people to cover your offsite visits or on a prejudice about your disability not being “deserving” of the adjustment and dislike of staff being able to ask for accommodation. That’s certainly something that has happened in businesses, so I wouldn’t discount it. But if you want to challenge that you’ll need to be very clear about what there reasoning is to make sure you don’t waste time and money on something you can’t win.

The remarks could well be bullying on the basis of a protected characteristic though, and your management should come down hard on that immediately or you will have a good case against them.

Not being able to do a small proportion of the job and needing that work reallocated would still fall under "reasonable adjustment".

Take a look at example two in this link - it. Specifically gives an example of this type of thing being reasonable.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/guidance/business/employing-people-workplace-adjustments/examples-reasonable-adjustments-practice

IdentityCris · 29/03/2026 09:03

If they adjusted the offsite visits to accommodate one staff member before, they can do so again. The task thing sounds fairly minimal. I don't see how your employers can say either is not a reasonable adjustment. I'd suggest contacting your union for support with this.

SuperMagicHappyForest · 29/03/2026 09:06

DarkMoonShine · 29/03/2026 08:36

Seems like most people think adjustments are not reasonable - and if that’s the case I’m happy to be corrected.

To clarify a few points:
When I first started the role the offsite visits were the sole responsibility of one staff member. They then went on maternity leave and the visits were divided up between the team. They are now back from maternity leave but it was decided that having the visits shared across the team was a better idea.
No one has childcare issues, the staff member who went on maternity has a partner who is a stay at home parent and everyone else either has no children or teen/adult children.
I’m not comfortable going to the office but I am able to manage it because it’s a predictable environment. The offsite visits are very unpredictable and that’s what I can’t cope with

The two task/three task thing: I wasn’t clear here. Essentially we all rotate around three tasks, they are very very similar and there isn’t a universally disliked task. I’m sure people have their preferences but it varies across the team.
I currently do Task A once, Task B twice, and Task C twice (I used to do B once and C three times). I want to do Task C three times and stop Task A altogether. I say Task C because looking at the rota this would result in the least impact upon other staff members not because I prefer C
My reason for this is Task A has a lot of changing/adapting processes. I struggle with these constant changes due to my autism.

I’m generally considered to be good at my job and I make the fewest errors in the team because I have excellent attention to detail.

The comment made wasn’t anything to do with sick leave or the way I work. I was basically told I’m considered weird by the team due to the way I communicate.

Edited

Ok so this is helpful and gives more context. It is absolutely why you need to speak to your union.

you didn’t take the job on with site visits, that’s a change. Did you raise the issue at the time? Did they discuss the implications of this with you given your disabilities? I think it most likely falls within a reasonable adjustment given the additional information.

your manager shouldn’t have communicated that information with you (about being weird), but should give feedback if he/she considers issues with your communication and ways you could improve. That is a difference between managing and being a dick.

FuckaboutFindout · 29/03/2026 09:06

I had a feeling you would say it was the manager making comments

I would report to HR
What is the agreed adjustment that gets forgotten @DarkMoonShine

RawBloomers · 29/03/2026 09:10

Ineffable23 · 29/03/2026 08:47

Not being able to do a small proportion of the job and needing that work reallocated would still fall under "reasonable adjustment".

Take a look at example two in this link - it. Specifically gives an example of this type of thing being reasonable.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/guidance/business/employing-people-workplace-adjustments/examples-reasonable-adjustments-practice

Show quote history

If that small proportion is critical to the rest of the job, then not doing that small proportion can mean you aren't capable of doing the job and reallocating wouldn't be reaosnable. That's why I went into the long spiel asking about the reason for the site visits and what flexibility there was with them. Since OP has since said they used to have just one staff member doing them it seems extremely unlikely they are critical, though.

Retireornot · 29/03/2026 09:11

I’m a union rep. Contact your union. Not ACAS. Don’t go into any more meetings without your union rep present.
if you started the job and work knew of your disability then the reasonable adjustments are ok. This offsite task wasn’t originally part of the job you began. Even if your job profile was changed when the task was divided up, for you it isn’t suitable. You being excused from it is reasonable.
jn respect of the other tasks, explain to your rep that task A is something you struggle with, and the employer can consider that - rather than say you want to do task C three times. That sounds like you are picking and choosing. It’s to be discussed what you can do instead of task A.
the comments part - unacceptable. You need at the least an apology with a clear understanding that this won’t happen again if that’s okay for you.
Discrimination is a day one offence. Unacceptable from the first time it happens.
Use your union. It’s harder to get them involved further down the line as it’s so much easier if they are involved from the start.
Ignore the advice for seeing if you have legal cover elsewhere. Union solicitors are employment law experts and the advice is free for you as a member.

Original poster
DarkMoonShine · 29/03/2026 09:13

FuckaboutFindout · 29/03/2026 09:06

I had a feeling you would say it was the manager making comments

I would report to HR
What is the agreed adjustment that gets forgotten @DarkMoonShine

It’s to give advance notice of changes where possible. There’s been at least three times where I could’ve been given notice but wasn’t. I know it sounds like a minor thing but an unexpected change can throw my whole day off. Obviously I appreciate it’s not always going to be possible.

OP posts:
Original poster
DarkMoonShine · 29/03/2026 09:18

Retireornot · 29/03/2026 09:11

I’m a union rep. Contact your union. Not ACAS. Don’t go into any more meetings without your union rep present.
if you started the job and work knew of your disability then the reasonable adjustments are ok. This offsite task wasn’t originally part of the job you began. Even if your job profile was changed when the task was divided up, for you it isn’t suitable. You being excused from it is reasonable.
jn respect of the other tasks, explain to your rep that task A is something you struggle with, and the employer can consider that - rather than say you want to do task C three times. That sounds like you are picking and choosing. It’s to be discussed what you can do instead of task A.
the comments part - unacceptable. You need at the least an apology with a clear understanding that this won’t happen again if that’s okay for you.
Discrimination is a day one offence. Unacceptable from the first time it happens.
Use your union. It’s harder to get them involved further down the line as it’s so much easier if they are involved from the start.
Ignore the advice for seeing if you have legal cover elsewhere. Union solicitors are employment law experts and the advice is free for you as a member.

Ah okay. Yes I can see now how it looks like I’m picking and choosing due to the way I phrased it. It was because I had looked at the allocation of tasks and worked out what would cause the least impact.

OP posts:
ToadRage · 29/03/2026 09:38

Definitely contact your union and make a complaint your work is legally obliged to make reasonable adjustments for you. I had to fight this battle when my manager said a chair was an unreasonable adjustment. I eventually got my chair but it took months of fighting and a formal grievance process. The manager who took my grievance meeting was gobsmacked that they did just go and buy me a chair.

Alwaysthehost · 29/03/2026 09:39

I was once in a really similar situation. Have long term mental health issues that are classified as disability. Had a job I could cope with fine, entirely behind the scenes admin stuff. It changed beyond all recognition about seven years in to include being front of house with high pressure sales elements for long periods of time which i could not cope with. Occupational health put in some adjustments which worked well, but then the job changed even more and they couldn’t accommodate the adjustments anymore. I pointed it it was no longer even remotely the same job I was taken on to do and I was entirely unsuited so maybe as my original job clearly didn’t exist anymore they should consider redundancy rather then shoehorning me into an unsuitable role. They said it wasn’t policy to make people redundant. I got the union involved and in the end I quit and perused them for constructive dismissal which I won. I’d definitely say speak to union.

Fundays12 · 29/03/2026 10:23

DarkMoonShine · 29/03/2026 08:36

Seems like most people think adjustments are not reasonable - and if that’s the case I’m happy to be corrected.

To clarify a few points:
When I first started the role the offsite visits were the sole responsibility of one staff member. They then went on maternity leave and the visits were divided up between the team. They are now back from maternity leave but it was decided that having the visits shared across the team was a better idea.
No one has childcare issues, the staff member who went on maternity has a partner who is a stay at home parent and everyone else either has no children or teen/adult children.
I’m not comfortable going to the office but I am able to manage it because it’s a predictable environment. The offsite visits are very unpredictable and that’s what I can’t cope with

The two task/three task thing: I wasn’t clear here. Essentially we all rotate around three tasks, they are very very similar and there isn’t a universally disliked task. I’m sure people have their preferences but it varies across the team.
I currently do Task A once, Task B twice, and Task C twice (I used to do B once and C three times). I want to do Task C three times and stop Task A altogether. I say Task C because looking at the rota this would result in the least impact upon other staff members not because I prefer C
My reason for this is Task A has a lot of changing/adapting processes. I struggle with these constant changes due to my autism.

I’m generally considered to be good at my job and I make the fewest errors in the team because I have excellent attention to detail.

The comment made wasn’t anything to do with sick leave or the way I work. I was basically told I’m considered weird by the team due to the way I communicate.

Edited

Do the off site visit mean a night away or lots of extra travelling? Does it add to the length of day etc? Its very likely the staff member who went on maternity leave who did do this has had a change of contract which reflects them not having to do it all the time now. If someone goes on maternity then comes back to a change like that it's normally reflected in the contract. It also sounds like the off site visits being spread across the whole team is more beneficial for the company and I suspect most of the team so in this instance its likely the adjustment you are asking for is unreasonable. If an adjustment has a negative effect on the business or team its legal to decline it.

The second adjustment is quite tricky. On the outset your request looks reasonable but it maybe the company have valid reasons to ensure the work is divided this way. What reason did the give to decline it? Companies need to be careful changing work because of one person's request if it affects the rest of the team. If one person cannot fulfil a large section of the role it raises questions as to if the role is right for them and is it a performance issue. How many hours does the part of the job you asked to swap take per week? Also the other factor is how long have you been in employment with this company?

Your manager is vile and should not be belittling you. You should raise with HR as a complaint.

Fundays12 · 29/03/2026 10:27

Alwaysthehost · 29/03/2026 09:39

I was once in a really similar situation. Have long term mental health issues that are classified as disability. Had a job I could cope with fine, entirely behind the scenes admin stuff. It changed beyond all recognition about seven years in to include being front of house with high pressure sales elements for long periods of time which i could not cope with. Occupational health put in some adjustments which worked well, but then the job changed even more and they couldn’t accommodate the adjustments anymore. I pointed it it was no longer even remotely the same job I was taken on to do and I was entirely unsuited so maybe as my original job clearly didn’t exist anymore they should consider redundancy rather then shoehorning me into an unsuitable role. They said it wasn’t policy to make people redundant. I got the union involved and in the end I quit and perused them for constructive dismissal which I won. I’d definitely say speak to union.

Your situation was awful and was constructive dismissal. The job you were taken on to do no longer existed.

If the OP was taken on to do these parts of the role and is requesting to change them then its not constructive dismissal. However it maybe her requests are reasonable but based on her post it looks her not wanting to go off site is an unreasonable adjustment which negatively impacts on the business so declining this is legal.

AlcoholicAntibiotic · 29/03/2026 10:34

If an adjustment has a negative effect on the business or team its legal to decline it.

But the organisation clearly thinks it’s fine to make adjustments for someone coming back from maternity leave, even though that’s had a negative effect on OP. So they can make an adjustment to put her back in the position she was beforehand.

FuckaboutFindout · 29/03/2026 10:52

AlcoholicAntibiotic · 29/03/2026 10:34

If an adjustment has a negative effect on the business or team its legal to decline it.

But the organisation clearly thinks it’s fine to make adjustments for someone coming back from maternity leave, even though that’s had a negative effect on OP. So they can make an adjustment to put her back in the position she was beforehand.

It was deemed to be beneficial for the responsibility to be shared as it had been whilst the person on ML was off-its written in the Op