Employers carry both legal and moral responsibility to ensure that disabled employees are not disadvantaged at work. The duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 is central to that responsibility. In practice, most disputes arise because managers delayed, applied rigid policies, failed to document their reasoning, or treated adjustment requests as discretionary rather than statutory. This guidance is designed to help managers approach reasonable adjustments confidently, proportionately and lawfully.
Under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010, employers must take reasonable steps to avoid substantial disadvantage experienced by a disabled employee compared with non-disabled persons. This comparative element is central to the duty: the question is not simply whether the employee faces difficulty, but whether a provision, criterion or practice (PCP), physical feature or absence of auxiliary aid places them at a substantial disadvantage relative to persons who are not disabled. The duty arises in three main situations:
Failure to comply with this duty amounts to unlawful disability discrimination. This is a proactive obligation. Once an employer knows (or could reasonably be expected to know) that a disabled employee is likely to experience substantial disadvantage, the duty is engaged.
The word “substantial” appears in two distinct contexts in the Act, and managers should not conflate them. When defining disability, substantial means more than minor or trivial (a relatively low bar). The same threshold applies to the disadvantage trigger. In practice, this means managers should not look for serious or significant disadvantage before beginning to consider adjustments.
A person is disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
Managers should avoid becoming overly preoccupied with legal definitions at the outset. The practical question is whether the employee is experiencing disadvantage linked to health and whether that disadvantage is more than trivial. Seek advice from the Occupational Health team where needed.
The duty to make adjustments does not apply where the employer does not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know, that the person has a disability and is likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage (Schedule 8, paragraph 20, Equality Act 2010). However, this is a two-sided principle. Employers who ignore warning signs or fail to make reasonable enquiries will be held to have constructive knowledge. Tribunals regularly find that employers ‘ought reasonably to have known’ where signs of health-related disadvantage were apparent but not explored. This is why early, supportive conversation is critical.
In addition to the adjustment duty, managers should be aware of section 15 of the Act, which creates a separate form of unlawful discrimination. Under section 15, it is unlawful to treat a disabled person unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability, unless the treatment can be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Unlike direct discrimination, a section 15 claim does not require a comparator. An employer may face liability under section 15 even where the adjustment duty has not yet been triggered.
The Act requires decision-makers to have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity, and fostering good relations. Adjustment decisions must demonstrate active, informed consideration, not simply reliance on standard policy.
When the Duty Arises in Practice?
The duty to consider adjustments does not depend on a formal request. It may arise where:
A manager who waits for a formal request or who fails to explore health-related signs of difficulty risks being found to have had constructive knowledge of disability without having discharged the proactive duty.
The Manager’s Role
Managers are central to lawful compliance. Their responsibilities include:
Failure to properly consider adjustments can give rise to claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments, discrimination arising from disability (section 15), or indirect discrimination.
The law does not provide a fixed list of reasonable adjustments. Reasonableness is assessed in context, and each potential adjustment must be weighed against the following considerations.
| Effectiveness | Will the adjustment remove or materially reduce the disadvantage? An ineffective adjustment is unlikely to be reasonable, even if inexpensive. |
| Practicability | Can it be implemented within operational structures? Minor administrative inconvenience will rarely justify refusal. |
| Cost & Resources | Cost must be considered relative to the size and resources of the employer, availability of external funding such as Access to Work. |
| Service Delivery | Would the adjustment significantly compromise statutory or operational functions? |
| Impact on Colleagues | Is redistribution of duties proportionate and sustainable? |
| Health & Safety | Does the adjustment introduce material risk that cannot be mitigated? |
Adjustments are highly individual. The same condition may require different measures depending on role and context. Common examples include the following.
Adjustments may be temporary, trialled, or permanent. A trial period is often good practice where uncertainty exists about the impact of an adjustment.
A defensible process generally follows five stages.
Stage 1 — Open Discussion
Meet with the employee to understand functional barriers and explore options collaboratively. This conversation should be supportive in tone and focused on practical solutions rather than medical categorisation.
Stage 2 — Occupational Health Input
As a physician-led Occupational Health service can provide functional capability evaluation, neurodiversity workplace needs assessment, advice on fitness for work, psychiatric assessment, recommendations for reasonable adjustments, prognosis and likely duration of limitation, and clarification of medical risk. OH advice informs the decision, and the employer makes it.
Stage 3 — Apply the Reasonableness Assessment
Consider each potential adjustment against effectiveness, practicality, cost, operational impact and safety, as set out above.
Stage 4 — Document the Decision
Record the following:
Clear documentation is often decisive in tribunal proceedings.
Stage 5 — Review and Monitor
The duty is ongoing. Adjustments should be reviewed after trial periods, if health changes, and at agreed intervals. A stale arrangement that no longer addresses the disadvantage may itself give rise to liability.
An employer is not required to implement a proposed adjustment where, following a genuine and evidence-based assessment:
Refusal must follow genuine, documented assessment. Blanket policies such as “we do not allow flexible working in this department” are rarely defensible. Tribunals apply particular scrutiny to cost-based and operational refusals not supported by evidence.
Where adjustments within the existing role are insufficient, consideration of suitable alternative roles is an important further step before the employer moves to formal capability procedures. Tribunals and ACAS guidance treat redeployment as a significant element of the employer’s overall duty.
Redeployment need not be to a post at the same grade if no equivalent post is suitable and available, but the employer should demonstrate that a reasonable search was conducted. Failure to consider redeployment at all is a recognised litigation risk.
Where reasonable adjustments have been genuinely explored, appropriate review periods have been allowed, and medical advice indicates sustained incapacity, it may be lawful to progress to capability procedures.
The employer must be able to demonstrate that the adjustment duty was fully and properly discharged, including redeployment consideration, before capability proceedings are initiated. Premature movement to formal process is a common litigation risk.
To reduce legal and reputational risk, employers should:
Tribunals place significant weight on documented, structured and proportionate reasoning. Organisations that can demonstrate a consistent, evidence-based approach are substantially better placed to defend claims.
Managers: Lead discussions, assess reasonableness, implement and review adjustments, consider redeployment where relevant, and document decisions and their rationale.
Employees: Engage in dialogue, provide relevant information, and participate in agreed arrangements. Where an employee declines to engage, this may be relevant to the reasonableness assessment, but it does not extinguish the employer’s duty.
Occupational Health: Provide independent medical assessment, functional advice and evidence-based recommendations to inform lawful decision-making. Final legal responsibility remains with the employer.
© Workforce Wellbeing Ltd
This document is intended for internal management guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Employers facing complex or contentious situations should seek independent legal counsel.
