When adjustments are refused
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)
