When adjustments are refused - Revision history

PeteTyerman: /* What is not practicability */

2026-03-30T22:32:23Z

What is not practicability

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:32, 30 March 2026
Line 912:		Line 912:

	There is no presumption in favour of maintaining existing arrangements. The focus is on whether disadvantage can be reduced or removed and, if so, whether there is a sufficiently evidenced reason not to do so.		There is no presumption in favour of maintaining existing arrangements. The focus is on whether disadvantage can be reduced or removed and, if so, whether there is a sufficiently evidenced reason not to do so.


			''Disclaimer: These pages are for general information only and do not constitute legal advice.'' For individual guidance, contact for children [[SENDIASS]], IPSEA, otherwise Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) or the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS). See the full [[Legal and Support Disclaimer]] for details.

PeteTyerman at 22:30, 30 March 2026

2026-03-30T22:30:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:30, 30 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== '''Refusing Reasonable Adjustments: What Must Be Shown''' ==		== '''Refusing Reasonable Adjustments: What Must Be Shown''' ==
	''A Constraint Framework on Lawful Refusal under the Equality Act 2010''		''A Constraint Framework on Lawful Refusal under the Equality Act 2010''

			[[A structured framework to support assessment of reasonable adjustments under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010.\|← Return to Operational Framework]]

	=== '''1. Purpose of this document''' ===		=== '''1. Purpose of this document''' ===

PeteTyerman: /* 4.5 Effectiveness */

2026-03-30T22:29:35Z

4.5 Effectiveness

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:29, 30 March 2026
Line 812:		Line 812:
	'''Key principle'''		'''Key principle'''

	'''An adjustment is effective if it reduces disadvantage, even if it does not eliminate it.~~'''~~		'''An adjustment is effective if it reduces disadvantage, even if it does not eliminate it.'''

	~~'''4.6 Cost~~'''

			=== '''4.6 Cost''' ===
	Cost is often relied upon as a reason for refusing an adjustment. It is commonly expressed as: “this is too expensive”, “we do not have the budget”, or “this is not affordable”. These statements are frequently made without full analysis.		Cost is often relied upon as a reason for refusing an adjustment. It is commonly expressed as: “this is too expensive”, “we do not have the budget”, or “this is not affordable”. These statements are frequently made without full analysis.

Line 826:		Line 825:
	Where external funding such as Access to Work, Education, Health and Care Plans, or other funding sources is available, this will often meet or substantially reduce the cost of an adjustment. The availability of such support is a strong indication that the adjustment is considered reasonable in principle.		Where external funding such as Access to Work, Education, Health and Care Plans, or other funding sources is available, this will often meet or substantially reduce the cost of an adjustment. The availability of such support is a strong indication that the adjustment is considered reasonable in principle.

	The organisation must take reasonable steps to identify and access such support.		The organisation must take reasonable steps to identify and access such support and implement the adjustment.

	Where ~~only~~ a contribution is required from the employer, this reflects an assessment that the remaining cost is affordable. Refusal in such circumstances will require particularly strong justification.		Where a contribution is required from the employer, this reflects an assessment that the remaining cost is affordable. Refusal in such circumstances will require particularly strong justification.

	Where cost is low or moderate, refusal will require a strong and clearly evidenced justification. Cost alone will not be sufficient unless it can be shown to be disproportionate when considered against the organisation’s resources and the benefit of the adjustment.		Where cost is low or moderate, refusal will require a strong and clearly evidenced justification. Cost alone will not be sufficient unless it can be shown to be disproportionate when considered against the organisation’s resources and the benefit of the adjustment.
Line 840:		Line 839:
	The assessment must also include the cost of not making the adjustment, including loss of staff, cost of recruitment, induction and training, time required to reach equivalent competence, reduced productivity during transition, increased workload on others, and service disruption or delay.		The assessment must also include the cost of not making the adjustment, including loss of staff, cost of recruitment, induction and training, time required to reach equivalent competence, reduced productivity during transition, increased workload on others, and service disruption or delay.

	These costs may be significant at all levels, including entry-level roles, skilled positions, and highly specialised professional roles. In many cases, the loss of an experienced or highly trained individual may result in costs that exceed the cost of the adjustment itself.		These costs may be significant at all levels, including entry-level roles, skilled positions, and highly specialised professional roles. In many cases, the loss of an experienced or highly trained individual may result in costs that exceed the cost of the adjustment itself this will usually make the adjustment reasonable.

	The organisation must consider not only immediate financial cost, but also the loss of experience, continuity, and prior investment in training and development. In some contexts, particularly in public services or highly skilled roles, the loss of a trained individual may represent a wider loss of investment and capability, which should be taken into account when assessing overall cost.		The organisation must consider not only immediate financial cost, but also the loss of experience, continuity, and prior investment in training and development. In some contexts, particularly in public services or highly skilled roles, the loss of a trained individual may represent a wider loss of investment and capability, which should be taken into account when assessing overall cost.

	Cost does not justify refusal unless it is clearly identified, fully assessed, considered in the context of the organisation’s overall resources, and shown to be disproportionate when weighed against the benefit of the adjustment.		Cost does not justify refusal unless it is clearly identified, fully assessed, considered in the context of the organisation’s overall resources, and shown to be disproportionate when weighed against the benefit of the adjustment.

			Where an adjustment has been treated as reasonable in comparable circumstances, the burden on the organisation is to demonstrate, with objective evidence, why it would be unreasonable in the present case.

			Voluntary provision of a materially similar arrangement within the organisation is evidence that it is practicable and affordable. Refusal on those grounds therefore requires objective justification.

	A failure to consider the full cost, including avoided costs and available funding, will undermine any reliance on cost as a justification.		A failure to consider the full cost, including avoided costs and available funding, will undermine any reliance on cost as a justification.

	~~'''📄 Appendix: Case Law Context'''~~


			== '''📄 Appendix: Case Law Context''' ==
	This document sets out a structured framework for analysing when a refusal to make a reasonable adjustment may be lawful. The principles described are consistent with established case law under the Equality Act 2010 and its predecessor legislation.		This document sets out a structured framework for analysing when a refusal to make a reasonable adjustment may be lawful. The principles described are consistent with established case law under the Equality Act 2010 and its predecessor legislation.

PeteTyerman: /* 3.3 Disability is different from other forms of discrimination */

2026-03-30T11:12:00Z

3.3 Disability is different from other forms of discrimination

Show changes

PeteTyerman: /* 4.4 Health and Safety */

2026-03-30T10:24:18Z

4.4 Health and Safety

Show changes

PeteTyerman: new page on refusing adjustments

2026-03-30T09:58:32Z

new page on refusing adjustments

New page

Refusing Reasonable Adjustments: What Must Be Shown

A Constraint Framework on Lawful Refusal under the Equality Act 2010

== 1. Purpose of this document ==
This document explains one specific question:

When can a reasonable adjustment lawfully be refused?

It is not a guide to how adjustments should be identified or put in place. It does not repeat the general law. It is not written as guidance for employers or organisations on how to avoid their duties.

Instead, it explains what must be shown if an adjustment is refused, and in doing so, explains what makes a refusal “unreasonable” in Equality Act terms.

This document assumes that the key questions about disability, disadvantage, and what adjustments may be appropriate have already been addressed.

It starts from the point where an adjustment has been identified that would remove or reduce disadvantage, and focuses only on what must be shown if that adjustment is refused.

The starting point is simple:

If an adjustment would remove or reduce a disadvantage, it will normally need to be made unless there is a proper reason not to.

That reason must be:

• real • explained • supported by objective evidence, not subjective opinion

It is not enough for an organisation to say:

• “we don’t think this would work” • “this would be difficult” • “this is not how we usually do things”

Refusal is not a matter of opinion or preference — it must be justified.

Once it is clear that an adjustment would reduce disadvantage, the responsibility shifts to the organisation to explain, with proper evidence, why it would be unreasonable to make it.

If that cannot be done, then the refusal is not neutral — it is likely to be unlawful.

== 2. Core legal framework ==
This section proceeds on the basis that:

• a substantial disadvantage has already been identified • an adjustment has been identified which would remove or reduce that disadvantage

The Equality Act 2010 requires organisations to avoid placing disabled people at a substantial disadvantage.

Adjustments are therefore not optional. They are the means by which the duty is fulfilled.

=== 2.1 How the duty works in practice ===
The structure of the duty is straightforward:

• A disabled person is placed at a substantial disadvantage • An adjustment is identified that would remove or reduce that disadvantage • The adjustment should be made

Refusal only arises if it can be objectively demonstrated that making the adjustment would be unreasonable.

=== 2.2 Two separate questions (must not be confused) ===
• Would the adjustment remove or reduce the disadvantage? → factual • Is there a sufficient reason not to make it? → justification

These must not be merged.

=== 2.3 Direction of the duty ===
The duty is directed towards:

• removing disadvantage • making adjustments where they help

Adjustments are the default. Refusal is the exception.

=== 2.4 Burden of justification ===
Once effectiveness is established:

• the burden shifts to the organisation

=== 2.5 Objective justification (not opinion) ===
A refusal must:

• be evidenced • be clearly explained • be based on real-world impact

Opinion is not sufficient.

=== 2.6 No “stalemate” between views ===
This is not:

• employee view vs employer view

If evidence is absent → refusal fails.

=== 2.7 Relationship to EHRC factors ===
Factors such as:

• cost • practicability • disruption • impact on others • health and safety

must be evidenced — not simply stated.

=== 2.8 Key principle ===
If an adjustment reduces disadvantage → it should be made unless objectively shown otherwise.

== 3. Equality, consistency, and disadvantage ==
Statements such as:

• “we treat everyone the same” • “we must be consistent”

are not sufficient.

Treating everyone the same may **create disadvantage**.

=== 3.1 Key point ===
If a rule causes disadvantage → it must be adjusted.

=== 3.2 Equality vs equity ===
• Equality = same treatment • Equity = fair outcome

The Act requires equity.

=== 3.3 Disability is different ===
Identical treatment may itself be discriminatory.

=== 3.4 Consistency is not justification ===
Consistency does not override the duty.

=== 3.5 Correct question ===
Not: “are we treating everyone the same?”

But:

“does this create disadvantage, and what removes it?”

=== 3.6 Relationship to refusal ===
Consistency arguments must still be evidenced.

== 4. Justifications for refusal: evidential requirements ==
Each factor must be:

• evidenced • analysed • justified

—not assumed.

=== 4.1 Practicability ===
Practicability asks:

Can it be done at all?

NOT:

• difficult • inconvenient • costly

Key point:

If it can be done → it is practicable.

=== 4.2 Disruption ===
Disruption means:

Impact on outcomes AFTER implementation

NOT:

• effort • transition • change process

=== 4.3 Impact on others ===
Must show:

• real effect on others’ performance

NOT:

• fairness concerns • assumptions • objections

=== 4.4 Health and Safety ===
Must show:

• real risk • evidence-based • remains after mitigation

=== 4.5 Effectiveness ===
An adjustment is effective if it:

• reduces disadvantage

Even partially.

=== 4.6 Cost ===
Cost must be:

• fully assessed • organisation-wide • compared to benefit

Must also consider:

• cost of NOT making the adjustment

Cost alone rarely justifies refusal.

== Appendix: Case Law Context ==
(leave exactly as you wrote — already well structured)