For employers, the duty to make reasonable adjustments remains one of the most misunderstood and high‑risk obligations under the Equality Act 2010. While many organisations are well‑intentioned, failures often arise not from a lack of care, but from uncertainty about what is required, when the duty arises, and how far it extends.

Handled correctly, reasonable adjustments support employees to perform at their best, reduce absence and improve retention. Handled poorly, they can quickly lead to grievances, breakdowns in trust and costly disability discrimination claims.

Understanding the Duty

The duty to make reasonable adjustments arises where a disabled employee or worker is placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with non‑disabled colleagues. Disability under the Equality Act is defined broadly and covers both physical and mental impairments that have a long‑term and substantial adverse effect on normal day‑to‑day activities. This can include conditions that may not be immediately visible, fluctuating conditions and mental health conditions.

Importantly, the duty is proactive. Employers do not need to wait for a formal request or for matters to reach a crisis point. Once the employer knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that an individual is disabled and experiencing disadvantage, the obligation is triggered.

This is an area where employers often fall into difficulty: assuming that silence means there is no issue, or that an employee must use specific language or invoke the Equality Act before action is required.

What Does a Reasonable Adjustment Look Like?

There is no “one size fits all” approach. Reasonableness depends on the circumstances of the individual, the role, and the organisation. Adjustments may relate to:

  • The working environment.
  • Working hours or patterns.
  • Duties, targets or methods of working.
  • Policies and procedures, including absence and performance management.
  • Equipment, support or training.

The key question is whether the adjustment is effective in removing the disadvantage. Factors such as cost, practicality, impact on others and the employer’s resources are relevant, but cost alone is rarely decisive—particularly where adjustments are temporary or external funding may be available.

Employers should also be cautious about assuming that an adjustment proposed by an employee is unreasonable without proper consideration or exploration of alternatives.

Avoiding Common Mistakes

Certain errors appear repeatedly in disputes and tribunal claims:

  • Rigid policy application: Applying policies consistently can be lawful, but fairness may require flexibility where a disabled employee is disadvantaged by a standard approach.
  • One‑off thinking: Adjustments should be reviewed periodically. A change in role, workload or health may mean existing adjustments are no longer effective.
  • Over‑reliance on occupational health reports: Medical advice is important, but it does not replace the need for managerial judgment or consultation with the employee.
  • Poor communication: Failing to explain decisions or engage meaningfully can undermine even reasonable outcomes.

Top Tip: Employers should avoid assuming that treating everyone the same is the safest option. Equality law recognises that fairness sometimes requires difference, not uniformity.

A Structured and Defensible Approach

Getting reasonable adjustments right is as much about process as outcome. A consistent and defensible approach should include:

  1. Early engagement: Create an environment where employees feel able to raise health concerns without fear of stigma or negative consequences.
  2. Individual assessment: Focus on the specific disadvantage faced, rather than the diagnosis alone. Managers should ask, “what is getting in the way of this person doing their job?”.
  3. Consultation: Reasonable adjustments should not be imposed unilaterally or dismissed without discussion.
  4. Appropriate professional advice: Occupational health input can help inform decisions, but should be considered alongside operational realities and employee feedback.
  5. Regular review and documentation: Clear records of discussions, decisions and reviews are essential, particularly where adjustment requests are declined or modified.

Top Tip: A well‑documented process is often the strongest line of defence if decisions are scrutinised later.

Beyond Legal Compliance

While the legal risks are significant, focusing solely on compliance can be a missed opportunity. Effective adjustments often result in increased engagement, improved performance and reduced turnover. They also send a clear message about organisational values and inclusion, something that is increasingly important for workforce morale and reputation.

The most successful employers view reasonable adjustments not as an administrative burden, but as a normal part of managing people in diverse and demanding workplaces.

Final Thoughts

Reasonable adjustments are not about lowering expectations or giving preferential treatment. They are about removing unnecessary barriers so that disabled employees can work safely, effectively and to their full potential.

At HF Limited, we advise employers daily on navigating this balance, supporting practical decision‑making, reducing risk, and robustly defending claims where allegations arise. If you would like guidance on developing or reviewing your approach to reasonable adjustments, our employment team would be happy to help: employmentmanchester@h-f.co.uk