A structured framework to support assessment of reasonable adjustments under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010.

A structured operational framework explaining how reasonable adjustments should be assessed under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010, with particular focus on the identification and removal of disability-related disadvantage.

Return to main navigation:* Main page

Equality Act 2010 – Section 20

Operational Framework for Avoiding Disability-Related Disadvantage

This framework sets out the structured process that should occur when reasonable adjustments are being considered under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010.

It is intended to explain, in practical and operational terms, how organisations should approach disability-related disadvantage once disability is known or reasonably apparent.

The framework applies broadly across:

• employment,
• education,
• professional training,
• examinations,
• recruitment,
• regulatory processes,
• occupational assessment,
• public services,
• and other contexts where Section 20 duties arise.

It describes what a disabled person can reasonably expect to happen when disadvantage arises, and what an employer, institution, manager, assessor, regulator or organisation should do when disability is known or reasonably suspected.

The framework is intended as a practical guide to support lawful, evidence-based and operationally coherent assessment of reasonable adjustments.

---

Objective of Section 20

As recognised in PP and SP v Trustees of Leicester Grammar School, the purpose of Section 20 of the Equality Act is to place the disabled person, so far as reasonably possible, in the position they would have occupied had the disability-related disadvantage not arisen.

The focus of the legislation is therefore the identification, avoidance and removal of disadvantage.

This may be achieved through:

• alteration of policies or practices,
• modification of operational arrangements,
• environmental changes,
• auxiliary aids,
• communication adjustments,
• flexibility in evidential requirements,
• individual accommodations,
• or other measures that effectively reduce or remove the disadvantage.

The purpose of Section 20 is not merely to preserve existing organisational arrangements and consider isolated accommodations around them.

Once disadvantage has been identified, the organisation should examine whether the underlying arrangement creating the disadvantage genuinely needs to exist in its current form.

The central question is not: > “How can the disabled person adapt themselves to our existing system?”

The central question is: > “Can the disadvantage reasonably be avoided or reduced?”

The existence of operational difficulty, administrative preference, historic practice or managerial convenience does not automatically justify maintaining disadvantage-producing arrangements.

Section 20 requires active consideration of whether policies, procedures, operational structures or evidential systems can themselves be altered, redesigned or organised differently in order to avoid disability-related disadvantage.

---

Stage I – Identify Disability-Related Disadvantage

On learning that a person is disabled (or may be), the organisation should examine the individual’s work, environment, procedures, requirements, operational arrangements and interactions in order to identify whether any aspect places them at more than minor or trivial disadvantage compared with others.

This assessment should focus on:

• the practical reality of the person’s experience,
• the actual effect of the disadvantage,
• and the context in which the disadvantage arises.

The assessment should not focus solely on labels, diagnoses or rigid categories.

Disadvantage may arise from:

• sensory demands,
• communication methods,
• workload structures,
• administrative processes,
• evidential requirements,
• time pressures,
• environmental arrangements,
• inconsistent systems,
• organisational expectations,
• patterns of supervision,
• procedural complexity,
• or combinations of these factors.

The question is not whether the arrangement causes difficulty for everyone.

The question is whether the disabled person experiences substantially greater disadvantage because of disability.

Organisations should recognise that disadvantage may itself affect:

• organisation,
• communication,
• memory,
• executive functioning,
• emotional regulation,
• fatigue,
• processing speed,
• attendance,
• form completion,
• navigation of systems,
• or the ability to advocate effectively for oneself.

Organisations should therefore avoid expecting disabled individuals to overcome disability-related barriers without support while simultaneously assessing whether disadvantage exists.

---

Stage II – Identify the Cause of the Disadvantage

Once disadvantage has been identified, the organisation should identify the policy, practice, procedure, operational arrangement, environmental factor, evidential requirement or organisational structure contributing to that disadvantage.

The cause should be identified by reference to operational reality and lived experience rather than labels, assumptions or managerial preference.

The source of disadvantage may arise from:

• formal policies,
• informal practices,
• workplace culture,
• operational systems,
• environmental arrangements,
• evidential thresholds,
• patterns of managerial decision-making,
• standardised procedures,
• communication systems,
• assumptions about “normal” performance,
• or combinations of these factors.

The organisation should examine how the arrangement functions in practice, not merely how it is described on paper.

An arrangement does not cease to create disadvantage simply because:

• it is longstanding,
• widely used,
• administratively convenient,
• applied to everyone,
• or historically accepted.

The fact that an arrangement is standardised does not itself establish that it is proportionate or necessary.

Particular attention should be given to evidential systems and procedural burdens.

In many contexts, disabled individuals may already possess:

• formal diagnoses,
• occupational health evidence,
• specialist reports,
• functional evidence,
• educational evidence,
• clinical records,
• or professional recommendations.

The organisation should carefully assess whether further evidential demands are genuinely necessary to understand the disadvantage or whether they simply reflect the organisation’s preferred administrative structure.

The Equality Act does not generally require disabled individuals to repeatedly prove disability through escalating forms of evidence where sufficient information already exists to identify likely disadvantage.

---

Stage III – Examine Whether the Arrangement Needs to Exist in Its Current Form

Before focusing solely on individual accommodations, the organisation should assess whether the disadvantage-producing arrangement genuinely needs to operate in its existing form.

This is a central part of the Section 20 analysis.

The organisation should examine:

• whether the arrangement is operationally necessary,
• evidence-based,
• proportionate,
• consistently applied,
• routinely modified or waived,
• capable of flexibility,
• or capable of being organised differently.

The existence of an operational challenge does not automatically justify the organisation’s chosen response to that challenge.

The organisation should first consider whether disadvantage can be avoided or reduced through alteration, redesign or modification of the underlying arrangement itself.

For example:

• limited desk availability does not automatically require universal hot-desking,
• staffing pressures do not automatically require rigid full-time working,
• administrative convenience does not automatically justify complex procedures,
• standardised evidential requirements do not automatically justify imposing substantial financial or procedural burdens,
• examination integrity does not automatically require inflexible assessment structures,
• historic practice does not automatically justify continuing disadvantage-producing systems.

The organisation should also consider whether:

• non-disabled individuals are routinely granted flexibility,
• exceptions are made informally,
• alternative arrangements already exist elsewhere,
• operational assumptions are evidence-based,
• or the arrangement primarily persists because it is administratively familiar.

The purpose of Section 20 is not merely to decide whether a disabled person can fit within an existing structure.

The purpose is to assess whether the structure itself can reasonably be modified to reduce or avoid disability-related disadvantage.

---

Stage IV – Identify Measures That Would Remove or Reduce the Disadvantage

The organisation should identify measures that would effectively remove or reduce the disadvantage and place the disabled person as near as reasonably possible to the position they would otherwise have occupied absent the disadvantage.

The effectiveness of the measure in reducing disadvantage should remain the primary focus.

Possible measures may include:

• alteration of policies or practices,
• modification of operational arrangements,
• flexible scheduling,
• adjusted workloads,
• altered duties,
• environmental changes,
• communication adjustments,
• assistive technology,
• auxiliary aids,
• flexible evidential arrangements,
• modified procedures,
• altered assessment methods,
• additional time,
• remote participation,
• supervision adjustments,
• phased arrangements,
• or individual accommodations.

The organisation should avoid artificially narrowing the range of possible adjustments by assuming existing systems cannot change.

The question is not whether the proposed measure is conventional.

The question is whether it effectively removes or reduces the disadvantage in a reasonable and proportionate manner.

Where multiple smaller measures collectively reduce disadvantage, these should be considered together rather than in isolation.

---

Stage V – Assess Reasonableness

The organisation must objectively assess whether the proposed measures are reasonable.

This requires balancing:

• the extent to which disadvantage would be removed or reduced,
• the impact on the disabled person if the measure is not implemented,
• operational impact,
• practicality,
• cost,
• available alternatives,
• available resources,
• health and safety considerations,
• and the extent to which the arrangement departs from existing practice.

The assessment should be evidence-based and grounded in practical reality.

A measure should not be rejected solely because:

• it departs from existing custom,
• managers are unfamiliar with it,
• it requires organisational adaptation,
• it alters historic practice,
• it creates administrative inconvenience,
• or similar flexibility has not previously been offered.

The greater the disadvantage to the disabled person, the greater the weight that should generally be attached to reducing that disadvantage.

Organisations should avoid overstating speculative operational concerns while minimising the real impact on the disabled person.

Assertions regarding impracticality or operational impossibility should be supported by evidence rather than assumption.

---

Stage VI – Reassess Alternatives if Necessary

If a proposed measure is assessed as unreasonable, the organisation should continue considering alternative measures capable of effectively removing or reducing the disadvantage.

The process should continue until:

• the disadvantage has been removed or sufficiently reduced,

or:

• no further reasonable measures are realistically available.

The organisation should be able to explain clearly:

• the disadvantage identified,
• the cause of that disadvantage,
• the measures considered,
• why particular measures were accepted or rejected,
• what evidence informed the assessment,
• and how the overall balancing exercise was carried out.

The process should not end simply because a preferred adjustment is rejected.

Section 20 requires continuing engagement with alternative methods of reducing disadvantage where reasonable options remain available.

---

Evidential Burden, Cost and Transfer of Responsibility

The duty to make reasonable adjustments rests with the organisation, not the disabled person.

Once sufficient information exists to indicate that disability-related disadvantage may arise, the organisation should itself engage in meaningful assessment and exploration of reasonable adjustments.

Organisations should avoid transferring the operational burden of adjustment assessment onto the disabled individual.

Evidential requirements should be:

• proportionate,
• genuinely necessary,
• and directed toward understanding functional disadvantage rather than imposing procedural hurdles.

The Equality Act does not generally require disabled individuals to privately finance access to equality.

Organisations should therefore carefully consider whether requiring:

• additional specialist reports,
• repeated diagnostic confirmation,
• private assessments,
• excessive documentation,
• or highly specific categories of evidence,

is genuinely necessary in order to understand and reduce disadvantage.

Financial, procedural and administrative burdens may themselves create disability-related disadvantage.

This is particularly important where disability may affect:

• executive functioning,
• organisation,
• communication,
• fatigue,
• processing capacity,
• stress tolerance,
• or ability to navigate complex systems.

An evidential process that itself creates substantial disadvantage may require modification under Section 20.

The focus should remain on understanding and reducing disadvantage, not on requiring disabled individuals to repeatedly justify the legitimacy of their disability.

---

Throughout this process, the objective remains to place the disabled person, so far as reasonably possible, in the position they would have occupied had the disability-related disadvantage not arisen.

---

Disclaimer: These pages are for general information only and do not constitute legal advice. For individual guidance, contact SENDIASS, IPSEA, ACAS or the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS), depending on the context. See the full Legal and Support Disclaimer for details.