Reasonable Adjustments: Reasonable for Whom, in Which Role, and in What Context?
This article provides general information about UK equality law and good employment practice. It is not individual legal advice. Specific or high-risk cases may require advice from an employment lawyer, occupational health professional or another appropriate specialist.
The central point
There is no universal catalogue of workplace adjustments that are always reasonable, or always unreasonable. The Equality Act 2010 deliberately uses a contextual test: where a disabled person is placed at a substantial disadvantage, the employer must take the steps that it is reasonable to take to avoid that disadvantage. The statutory Employment Code confirms that the Act does not prescribe a definitive checklist and that reasonableness depends on all the circumstances of the individual case. ACAS similarly states that what is reasonable depends on each situation.
That means the right question is not:
“Is home working, protected focus time or an altered shift pattern a reasonable adjustment?”
It is:
“Would this adjustment effectively remove or reduce this person’s disability-related disadvantage in this particular role and service context; is it reasonable for this employer to implement it; and, if not, what alternative could achieve the necessary outcome?”
This distinction matters particularly in local government. Councils employ policy officers, planners, social workers, refuse collectors, care workers, customer-service staff, school-based employees, highways teams, finance professionals and emergency-response personnel. The same request may therefore have very different implications depending on whether physical presence, immediate public contact, statutory timescales, lone working, safeguarding or operational coverage are genuinely essential to the role.
What the law actually requires
Section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 applies the reasonable-adjustments duty to employers in relation to disabled employees and job applicants. Sections 20 and 21 establish three forms of adjustment duty and make failure to comply a form of disability discrimination.
The three requirements concern:
A provision, criterion or practice: a rule, policy, working arrangement, management practice or potentially a one-off decision that places the disabled person at a substantial disadvantage.
A physical feature: for example, workplace access, layout, lighting, furniture, entrances or facilities.
An auxiliary aid or service: such as adapted equipment, assistive software, accessible information, an interpreter or support worker.
“Substantial” does not mean extreme. In the Act it means more than minor or trivial. The duty is intended to remove the disadvantage, not simply to demonstrate that the employer has considered doing something.
The duty applies only where the individual is disabled within the Equality Act definition: broadly, where a physical or mental impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. A formal medical diagnosis is not necessarily required, and not every neurodivergent person will automatically satisfy the statutory definition. ACAS advises employers to support neurodivergent workers whether or not they have a diagnosis, while recognising that neurodivergence will often amount to a disability depending on its effects.
For an existing worker, Schedule 8 provides that the duty does not arise where the employer neither knows nor could reasonably be expected to know that the person is disabled and likely to experience the relevant disadvantage. However, the Employment Code says employers must do what they can reasonably be expected to do to find out, while respecting dignity, privacy and confidentiality. A formal request containing the words “reasonable adjustment” is therefore not always necessary before the employer should respond to an apparent disability-related difficulty.
There is also no legal requirement for the employee to design the solution. The Employment Code says there is no onus on the disabled worker to propose the adjustment, although employers should ask for their views and consider suggestions. The legal responsibility remains with the employer.
What makes an adjustment reasonable?
The Equality Act itself does not provide an exhaustive checklist. Paragraph 6.28 of the statutory Employment Code identifies factors that may be relevant:
whether the step would be effective in preventing the substantial disadvantage
its practicability
its financial and other costs
the extent of any disruption
the employer’s financial and other resources
the availability of financial or other assistance, including Access to Work
the type and size of the employer.
Health and safety may also be relevant, but it requires evidence rather than assumption. The Employment Code recommends a suitable and sufficient risk assessment where an adjustment may increase risk. HSE guidance emphasises that there are very few situations in which health and safety law requires the exclusion of disabled people and that risks can often be managed by reallocating elements of work, rescheduling duties or providing alternative equipment.
ACAS expresses the practical test in similarly straightforward terms: consider whether the adjustment will remove or reduce the disadvantage, whether it is practical and affordable, and whether it would harm others’ health and safety.
It also notes that an employer is not normally required to change the basic nature of the job.
That qualification must not become a shortcut. Managers should distinguish between:
a genuinely essential role outcome;
the current method used to achieve it;
a long-standing team convention;
and an individual manager’s preference.
“In-person attendance is how we have always operated” is not the same as evidence that attendance is essential. Equally, an employee’s preferred arrangement is not automatically reasonable merely because it would be helpful. The assessment must remain objective and linked to the actual disadvantage and role.
Cost must also be considered proportionately. A significant cost does not automatically make an adjustment unreasonable; the Employment Code advises considering the overall cost-effectiveness, including the possible costs of recruitment and training if the employee cannot remain in work. Access to Work may affect what it is reasonable to provide, although it does not replace the employer’s legal responsibility.
Why the same adjustment may produce different outcomes
Home or hybrid working
Home working may be reasonable for a policy officer whose outputs can be delivered remotely and for whom commuting or an overstimulating office creates a substantial disadvantage. The Employment Code expressly identifies home working or assignment to a different workplace as possible adjustments.
The same request may not be workable in identical form for a residential care worker, school crossing patrol officer or operational highways employee whose principal duties require presence at a particular location. That does not justify an immediate refusal. The council should still ask whether home working could apply to administrative duties, training, case recording or particular days, or whether altered shifts, travel support or another workplace would address the barrier.
A 2024 Employment Tribunal decision concerning a police employee illustrates the importance of evidence: working entirely from home was upheld in circumstances where the tribunal found no operational requirement for office attendance and there was medical evidence concerning the risks of travel and attendance. This is not a rule that home working is always reasonable; it demonstrates why the actual role, evidence and operational requirement matter.
Altered start and finish times
A later start may be effective and practicable for an employee whose disability affects sleep, medication, fatigue or rush-hour travel, particularly where work can be scheduled flexibly. Altered hours, additional breaks and phased returns are recognised examples in the Employment Code and ACAS guidance.
The same hours may not provide sufficient operational coverage for a role tied to school opening, scheduled waste collection, a public counter or an emergency rota. Possible alternatives might include a shift exchange, different scheduled duties, a revised rota, an alternative location or allocating a limited subsidiary task to another worker.
Protected focus time
Blocking uninterrupted time may be a low-disruption and effective adjustment for report writing, financial analysis, EHCP work or complex case recording. In a small emergency-response team, however, complete unavailability at particular times may affect essential coverage. A modified arrangement, rotating protected periods, an agreed emergency contact route or shorter predictable focus blocks, may achieve the objective without removing an essential requirement.
Quiet workspaces, sensory changes or headphones
A quieter desk, noise-cancelling headphones, adjusted lighting or access to a private room may be highly effective for an office-based employee experiencing sensory overload. ACAS lists quiet spaces, screen filters, headphones and sensory changes as possible neurodiversity adjustments.
Headphones that prevent an employee hearing alarms, vehicle movements or safety instructions may not be appropriate in a depot or operational environment. But the correct response is not “headphones are unsafe”. It is to assess the actual risk and consider alternatives: a quieter control room, different hearing protection, visual alerts, changed positioning or protected recovery breaks.
Communication and meetings
Providing agendas in advance, clarifying priorities in writing, breaking instructions into stages, allowing processing time or agreeing how urgent messages will be identified may be straightforward and effective. ACAS recommends that employers listen, avoid assumptions and discuss how proposed adjustments would work in practice.
A request never to receive verbal information may be difficult in a role involving emergencies, live decision-making or public contact. An alternative could be verbal discussion followed by a written summary, permission to record agreed actions, additional processing time or a nominated point of contact.
Workload and duties
Reallocating minor or subsidiary duties can be reasonable. Removing the principal purpose of the job may not be. The Employment Code gives the example of transferring occasional roof work away from an employee with severe vertigo, while ACAS notes that an adjustment need not change the basic nature of the job.
However, councils should not assume redeployment is beyond the duty. In Archibald v Fife Council, the House of Lords confirmed under predecessor legislation that reasonable adjustment could include transferring a disabled employee to a suitable vacancy and potentially dispensing with competitive interview requirements. The duty can require more favourable treatment where that is necessary to remove disadvantage.
Disability-related appointments and absence
Time away for rehabilitation, assessment or treatment may be a reasonable adjustment. This might involve flexible hours, planned disability leave, altered appointment scheduling or treatment of some absence separately from general sickness absence.
There is not, however, a universal entitlement to unlimited paid time off for every disability-related appointment. Whether time should be paid, unpaid, made up or treated under a council’s disability-leave policy depends on the circumstances, contractual provisions and what is reasonable. In Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Court of Appeal confirmed that an attendance policy could place a disabled employee at a substantial disadvantage even though it applied to everyone, but it also upheld the tribunal’s conclusion that the particular adjustments requested were not reasonable on the facts.
The employee or requester perspective
An employee does not need to present a legal argument or arrive with the perfect answer. A useful request explains:
The barrier: “What aspect of the job, environment, policy or process is difficult?”
The effect: “How does this place me at a disadvantage?”
The outcome needed: “What would enable me to participate, work safely or perform effectively?”
Possible solutions: “What has helped before, or what might be worth trying?”
Relevant evidence: occupational-health advice, clinical information or a workplace-needs assessment where available and proportionate.
Review: “How will we know whether the adjustment is working?”
Employees should only need to share information relevant to understanding the barrier and possible support. HSE states that employees cannot be required to disclose unnecessary details and should consent before specialists are approached. ACAS advises employees to think carefully about what they do and do not want to disclose.
The manager perspective
A strong managerial response is neither an automatic “yes” nor a defensive “no”. It is structured curiosity:
Listen without testing the employee’s credibility.
Clarify the disadvantage and desired outcome.
Identify essential role and service requirements.
Separate evidence-based operational needs from habit or preference.
Consider the requested adjustment and credible alternatives.
Use occupational health or specialist advice where necessary, without outsourcing the decision.
Agree a trial when effectiveness or impact is uncertain.
Record the decision, responsibilities and review date.
The manager should not reject a request because colleagues might regard it as “special treatment”. The Act may require different or more favourable treatment to remove disability-related disadvantage, and the Employment Code says an employer should address obstructive colleague behaviour rather than rely on it as a reason not to adjust.
The HR perspective: consistent process, individualised outcome
HR’s role is to make decision-making consistent, not mechanistic. Good governance should provide:
a clear route for requesting support;
prompt acknowledgement and ownership;
a standard set of evidence-based questions;
guidance on who can approve costs or working-pattern changes;
access to occupational health, workplace assessments, IT, health and safety and facilities advice;
confidential adjustment passports;
escalation and review arrangements;
periodic analysis of delays, recurring barriers and variation between services;
manager training on disability, privacy, conversations and operational assessment.
ACAS recommends policies that explain access, manager responsibilities, review arrangements and what happens if an adjustment is not working. It also recommends recording and reviewing adjustments, particularly following changes of role, workplace, equipment or health. Evidence from the user’s own anonymised local-government research supports this direction. One HR interview described a coordinated model involving HR, IT, facilities, health and safety and the manager, with trial licences, joined-up plans and continuing check-ins. The interviewee specifically warned against condition-based checklists and emphasised understanding each individual.
When the requested adjustment cannot be accommodated
A lawful and constructive response should not be limited to: “The request is unreasonable.”
Instead, the employer should:
explain which disadvantage and requested outcome it has understood;
identify the genuine operational, safety, practicality or cost issue;
show what evidence supports that concern;
consider whether the concern can be reduced through safeguards or modification;
explore alternatives capable of addressing the same disadvantage;
consider a time-limited trial where uncertainty, not impossibility, is the difficulty;
record the reasoning and communicate it sensitively;
keep the position under review.
The statutory Code recommends proper assessment in consultation with the disabled person, timely implementation and, where necessary, a combination of adjustments. ACAS says that even where the requested measure is unreasonable, the employer should still look for other reasonable ways to support the employee.
A practical framework: REASON
R , Recognise the barrier
What workplace practice, physical feature or missing aid creates the disadvantage?
Is the effect more than minor or trivial?
What does the organisation know, or reasonably need to find out?
E , Establish the outcome
What does the employee need to be able to do?
Is the objective participation, concentration, safe attendance, communication, treatment access or sustainable performance?
A , Assess possible adjustments
What has the employee requested?
What other options might achieve the same outcome?
Is a combination of smaller changes more effective?
S , Scrutinise the context
Would the adjustment work?
What duties are genuinely essential?
What is the effect on service coverage, colleagues, residents, statutory responsibilities and safety?
Are those concerns evidenced or assumed?
O , Organisational proportionality
How practical is implementation?
What will it cost in the context of the council’s resources?
What external assistance is available?
Could a trial resolve uncertainty?
N , Note, implement and review
What has been agreed or declined, and why?
Who is responsible for implementation?
When will effectiveness be reviewed?
What will happen if the arrangement or circumstances change?
Conclusion
Reasonable adjustments are not a contest between an employee’s preference and a manager’s authority. They are a structured attempt to identify and remove a disability-related disadvantage while taking account of the real requirements of the role and organisation.
For councils, the most defensible and inclusive approach is therefore:
Be consistent in the quality of the conversation, the questions asked, the evidence considered and the reasoning recorded, but remain individual in the outcome.
That is not inconsistency. It is what context-sensitive equality looks like.
