When adjustments are refused

Refusing Reasonable Adjustments: What Must Be Shown

A Constraint Framework on Lawful Refusal under the Equality Act 2010

← Return to Operational Framework

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 does not revisit whether a person is disabled or whether an adjustment could be made. 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, and
• 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”, or
• “this is not how we usually do things”.

This document is written to make clear that:

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

This matters because many decisions to refuse adjustments are presented as reasonable without proper explanation or evidence. The law does not work that way.

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 or undecided — it is likely to be unlawful.

A central premise of this document is that lawful refusal cannot rest on opinion. While views may be expressed by those making decisions, the statutory framework requires objective justification. If unsupported opinion were sufficient, the view of the disabled person would be equally determinative, and no structured resolution would be possible. That is not the position in law. Once the duty is engaged, the burden lies on the party seeking to refuse the adjustment to demonstrate, on an objective basis, why it would be unreasonable to make it. Where such justification is not evidenced, the consequence is not a neutral or indeterminate position but a failure to comply with the duty.

Although this document is written so that a disabled person can understand what must be shown if an adjustment is refused, the same standard applies to those making the decision. It therefore also operates as a clear statement of what an employer, education provider, or service provider must be able to demonstrate if they decide to refuse an adjustment.

2. Core legal framework

This section proceeds on the basis that a substantial disadvantage has already been identified and that 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.

This disadvantage may arise from any aspect of how the organisation operates, makes decisions, or structures its activities, whether formal or informal.

The law deals with this by requiring adjustments to be made.

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.

This requires more than a statement or belief; it requires a demonstrable and evidenced justification.

2.2 Two separate questions (must not be confused)

There are two different questions in law, and they must be kept separate:

Would the adjustment remove or reduce the disadvantage?

→ This is a factual question

Is there a sufficient reason not to make it?

→ This is a justification question

These are often wrongly merged.

An adjustment should not be rejected simply because it is said to be “not reasonable” without objective evidence supporting that conclusion.

2.3 Direction of the duty

The duty is not neutral.

It is directed towards:

• removing disadvantage, and
• making adjustments where they will help

It is not directed towards preserving existing systems or working practices.

This means:

• adjustments are the default outcome
• refusal is an exception that must be justified

This directional structure is important because it means refusal must be justified against a presumption in favour of making the adjustment.

2.4 Burden of justification

Once it is established that an adjustment would remove or reduce disadvantage:

the responsibility shifts to the organisation to justify refusing it.

This is not a shared or balanced position.

The organisation must demonstrate, with objective evidence and clear reasoning, why the adjustment should not be made.

2.5 Objective justification (not opinion)

A refusal must be based on objective justification.

This means:

• it must be supported by evidence,
• it must be capable of being explained clearly, and
• it must be based on real-world impact, not assumption. It is not enough to rely on:
• belief,
• preference, or
• general statements such as “this would not work”

Without evidence, these are opinions — and opinions do not discharge the duty.

A conclusion is not evidence. Saying that something would be difficult, impractical, or inappropriate does not establish that it is so.

2.6 No “stalemate” between views

The law does not treat this as a balance between:

the disabled person’s view, and the organisation’s view

If both sides simply express opinions, this does not create a neutral position.

The organisation must justify refusal.

If it cannot do so with objective evidence, then:

the burden has not been met, and

the refusal is likely to be unlawful.

The tribunal’s role is therefore not to choose between competing opinions, but to assess whether the required justification has been established.

2.7 Relationship to EHRC factors

The Equality and Human Rights Commission identifies factors such as:

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

These are not free-standing reasons for refusal.

They are areas that must be:

considered properly, and

supported by evidence

They do not allow refusal simply because they are mentioned.

For example:

saying something is “too costly” is not enough

saying something is “disruptive” is not enough

Each factor must be demonstrated in reality, not assumed.

Listing a factor is not the same as demonstrating it.

If these factors are not supported by evidence, they cannot properly justify refusal.

2.8 Key principle

Where an adjustment would remove or reduce a substantial disadvantage:

it should be made unless it can be objectively demonstrated that it would be unreasonable not to do so.

2.9 Conclusion

The Equality Act creates:

a duty to avoid disadvantage

a requirement to make adjustments

and a limited space for refusal

That space is defined by:

evidence, not opinion

justification, not preference

Accordingly:

Refusal is not a matter of choice — it is a conclusion that must be objectively demonstrated.

3. Equality, consistency, and disadvantage

A common reason given for refusing adjustments is that:

“we treat everyone the same”

or

“we have to be consistent”

At first glance, this may appear fair.

In practice, it can be the opposite.

The Equality Act does not require identical treatment.

It requires that disabled people are not placed at a disadvantage.

3.1 Why “treating everyone the same” can create disadvantage

If a rule, requirement, or way of working applies equally to everyone, but:

• places a disabled person at a disadvantage, and
• that disadvantage could be reduced or removed by an adjustment

then maintaining that rule without adjustment continues the disadvantage.

In these circumstances, treating everyone the same is not neutral —

it is the mechanism by which disadvantage is maintained, rather than addressed.

3.2 Equality and equity

The Equality Act is often misunderstood as requiring people to be treated the same.

That is not its purpose.

Treating everyone the same is equality of treatment.

The Act is concerned with equality of outcome, which requires addressing disadvantage.

This is sometimes described as equity.

Equity means recognising that:

• people start from different positions, and
• different treatment may be required to achieve a fair outcome

The duty to make reasonable adjustments is the part of the Equality Act that gives effect to this principle.

It requires organisations to move away from identical treatment where that would maintain disadvantage, and instead take steps to remove or reduce that disadvantage.

This is reflected in case law, which makes clear that the relevant comparison is not whether a disabled person is treated the same as others, but whether they are placed at a disadvantage compared to a person without the disability. The purpose of adjustments is to remove or reduce that disadvantage so that the disabled person can reach a comparable position. A policy of identical treatment does not achieve this and may therefore be incompatible with the duty.

3.3 Disability is different from other forms of discrimination

Much equality training and workplace guidance focuses on treating people the same in order to avoid discrimination, particularly in relation to characteristics such as race or sex.

That approach does not apply in the same way to disability.

In disability discrimination, the law recognises that identical treatment can itself create or maintain disadvantage. For that reason, the Equality Act imposes a specific duty to make reasonable adjustments.

This means that:

• treating everyone the same is not a safe or neutral position
• refusing to make adjustments in order to maintain consistency may itself amount to discrimination

Arguments such as:

“we must treat everyone the same to be fair”

“we cannot make exceptions”

may reflect a misunderstanding of the law.

The duty in disability cases is not simply to avoid different treatment.

It is to take positive steps to remove disadvantage where it arises, unless it can be objectively demonstrated that it would be unreasonable to do so.

Applying a “treat everyone the same” approach in disability cases may therefore lead directly to unlawful outcomes.

3.4 Consistency is not a justification for refusal

Organisations often rely on consistency as a reason for refusal:

• “we cannot make exceptions”
• “this applies to everyone”
• “it would be unfair to others”

These are not, by themselves, sufficient reasons.

Consistency does not override the duty to make adjustments.

A policy of consistency may reflect equality of treatment, but it does not address equity.

If consistency results in disadvantage, then:

• the adjustment duty applies, and
• the organisation must justify why the adjustment cannot be made

3.5 The correct question

The correct question is not :

“are we treating everyone the same?”

It is:

“does this approach place a disabled person at a disadvantage, and if so, what adjustment is required?”

If an adjustment would reduce that disadvantage, the organisation must then justify, with objective evidence, why it should not be made.

3.6 Relationship to refusal

Arguments based on consistency or equal treatment often appear as reasons for refusing adjustments.

However:

• they are statements of preference or policy
• they do not, in themselves, demonstrate why an adjustment is unreasonable

To rely on consistency as part of a refusal, the organisation must still show, with evidence:

• what the actual impact of making the adjustment would be, and
• why that impact makes the adjustment unreasonable

Without this, consistency is not a justification — it is an assertion.

3.7 Key principle

Treating everyone the same does not satisfy the duty if it results in disadvantage.

Where an adjustment would remove or reduce that disadvantage:

the organisation must either make the adjustment or justify, with objective evidence, why it would be unreasonable not to do so.

4. Justifications for refusal: evidential requirements

The Equality and Human Rights Commission identifies a number of factors that may be considered when deciding whether an adjustment is reasonable. This document treats those factors as areas requiring evidence, not assertion. Each must be examined separately and justified on the facts. Cost is considered last because it depends on the overall picture, not any single element in isolation.

4.1 Practicability

Practicability is sometimes relied upon as a reason for refusing an adjustment.

It is often expressed as:

• “this isn’t practical”
• “this wouldn’t work”

These statements are frequently used loosely and incorrectly.

What practicability means

Practicability is a strict and limited concept.

It asks a simple question:

Can the adjustment be implemented in reality at all?

It does not ask:

• whether it is difficult
• whether it is inconvenient
• whether it would require change
• whether it would cost money

Those are separate issues.

The correct test

To rely on practicability as a reason for refusal, the organisation must show:

that the adjustment cannot be implemented in reality

This is a high threshold.

It requires more than:

• difficulty
• disruption
• preference

It requires showing that the adjustment cannot be done at all in practice.

What is not practicability

The following do not demonstrate impracticability:

• this would be difficult to organise
• this would require changes to our systems
• this would be awkward to manage
• this would take time or effort

These are issues of:

• inconvenience
• disruption
• or cost

They do not show that the adjustment cannot be done.

Structural change is not impracticability

An adjustment is not impracticable simply because it would require changes to roles, systems, or the way work is organised.

Many adjustments involve:

• redistributing tasks
• altering responsibilities
• introducing additional support

While this may represent a change to existing structures, it does not mean the adjustment cannot be done.

In some cases, such changes may improve efficiency or reduce overall cost.

Practicability must therefore be assessed in terms of whether the adjustment can be implemented in reality, not whether it fits within existing arrangements.

Separation from other factors

Practicability is not concerned with whether an adjustment is easy, quick, or convenient to implement.

It is concerned only with whether it can be done at all.

Where an adjustment can be implemented, questions about:

• difficulty
• scale
• time
• or cost

must be addressed under other justification factors, not treated as impracticability.

Misclassification must be avoided (key structural principle)

The question is not whether factors such as scale, time, organisational change, or resource impact are relevant. They may be relevant to whether an adjustment is reasonable.

However, they must be considered under the appropriate justification factors.

They do not redefine practicability.

Treating such factors as impracticability collapses distinct legal tests into a single unsupported assertion and avoids the requirement to provide proper, evidence-based justification.

Evidence required

To justify refusal on grounds of practicability, the organisation must show, with objective evidence:

• what the adjustment would require
• why it cannot be implemented in practice

This must be based on real constraints, not assumptions.

Assertions are not sufficient.

Relationship to refusal

Practicability is a rare justification for refusal.

Most adjustments can be implemented, even if they require:

• effort
• change
• or cost

If an adjustment can be implemented in reality, then refusal cannot be justified on grounds of practicability.

Key principle

Practicability is about whether something can be done at all, not whether it is difficult.

If an adjustment can be implemented in reality, it is practicable.

An adjustment is only impracticable if it cannot be implemented in practice.

4.2 Disruption

Disruption is often relied upon as a reason for refusing an adjustment.

It is commonly expressed as:

• this would disrupt the service
• this would affect how we operate
• this would impact the team

These statements are frequently made without identifying what disruption actually means.

What disruption means

Disruption concerns the effect of an adjustment on the organisation’s outputs or outcomes once the adjustment is in place.

It is not concerned with:

• the effort required to implement the adjustment
• the process of change
• the transition from one way of working to another

These are matters of:

• time
• effort
• and cost

They do not, in themselves, demonstrate disruption.

The correct test

To rely on disruption as a reason for refusal, the organisation must show:

that, once implemented, the adjustment would have a significant negative effect on the organisation’s ability to deliver its functions, services, or outcomes

This must be assessed in terms of:

• actual performance
• actual outputs
• or actual service delivery

What must be shown

The organisation must provide objective evidence of:

• what the position would be after the adjustment is in place
• what outputs or outcomes would be affected
• how those outputs would be affected
• why that effect is significant

This must be based on:

• real evidence or
• credible modelling

not assumption.

What is not sufficient

The following do not demonstrate disruption:

• this would take time to implement
• this would require training
• this would involve reorganising roles
• this would be difficult to introduce

These describe the process of change, not the resulting impact.

They do not show that the organisation’s outputs would be negatively affected once the adjustment is operating.

Temporary implementation effects

It is possible that implementing an adjustment may involve temporary disruption while changes are made.

However, this is usually short-term and forms part of the process of implementation.

Such effects should not be treated as ongoing disruption for the purposes of refusal.

They are considered as part of the effort or cost of introducing the adjustment, and must be weighed against the longer-term position once the adjustment is in place.

Temporary disruption during implementation will rarely be sufficient, on its own, to justify refusal.

4.3 Impact on others

Impact on others is often relied upon as a reason for refusing an adjustment.

It is commonly expressed as:

• this would be unfair to other staff
• this would place additional burden on the team
• others would have to take on more work

These statements are frequently made without identifying what the actual impact is.

What impact on others means

Impact on others concerns the actual effect that an adjustment would have on other people once the adjustment is in place.

It is not concerned with:

• general perceptions of fairness
• assumptions about how others may feel
• resistance to different treatment

It is concerned only with real, demonstrable effects on others’ work or outcomes.

The duty applies to the whole system

The duty to make adjustments applies to the organisation as a whole, including how work is distributed between individuals.

This means that changes to other people’s roles or workloads may form part of the adjustment itself.

An impact on others is therefore not a fixed constraint.

If an adjustment would affect others, the organisation must consider whether that impact can itself be addressed through further adjustments to roles, responsibilities, or working arrangements.

Impact on others can only justify refusal if the organisation can show that any resulting disadvantage to others cannot reasonably be mitigated.

The correct test

To rely on impact on others as a reason for refusal, the organisation must show:

that, once implemented, the adjustment would have a significant negative effect on other individuals’ ability to carry out their roles or on the outcomes they are responsible for

This must be assessed in terms of:

• actual workload
• actual performance
• or actual outcomes

not assumption.

What must be shown

The organisation must provide objective evidence of:

• what the position of others would be after the adjustment is in place
• what change in workload, responsibility, or output would occur
• how that change would affect their ability to perform their role
• why that effect is significant

This must be based on:

• real data or
• credible modelling

not general concern.

What is not sufficient

The following do not demonstrate impact on others:

• others would have to do more
• this would be unfair to the team
• this would create resentment
• others might object

These are:

• general statements
• or assumptions about perception

They do not demonstrate a significant impact on performance or outcomes.

Fairness is not equality of treatment

Arguments about fairness often rely on the idea that everyone should be treated the same.

As set out earlier, this is not the legal position in disability cases.

Different treatment in the form of adjustments is not unfair if it is required to remove disadvantage.

Impact must be assessed at outcome level

Impact on others must be assessed by reference to:

• whether their ability to perform their role is materially affected
• whether outcomes or performance are reduced

It is not measured by:

• whether their role changes
• whether tasks are redistributed
• whether they are required to adapt

Impact can often be mitigated

An initial impact on others does not establish that the adjustment is unreasonable.

For example, allowing a professional to work reduced hours may appear to increase the workload on others. However, that effect is not fixed. It may be mitigated by further adjustments, such as redistributing tasks or introducing additional support roles.

The relevant question is not whether the first adjustment creates an impact, but whether the organisation has taken reasonable steps to address that impact.

An impact on others only becomes relevant if it remains after such steps have been properly considered.

Requirement to consider mitigation

If an impact on others is identified, the organisation must also show:

• whether that impact could be reduced or managed, including by making adjustments to the roles, responsibilities, or working arrangements of others, and
• what steps were considered to achieve that

Refusal cannot be justified if the impact could reasonably be mitigated.

Relationship to refusal

The existence of an initial impact on others does not justify refusal; it requires further analysis and, where appropriate, further adjustment.

Impact on others does not justify refusal unless it is:

• demonstrated in terms of outcomes
• supported by objective evidence
• sufficiently significant
• cannot reasonably be mitigated, and

proportionate when compared with the disadvantage experienced by the disabled person if the adjustment is not made

The greater the disadvantage to the disabled the the higher level of impact on others that may need to be tolerated.

Key principle

Impact on others must be real, significant, and evidenced.

4.4 Health and Safety

Health and safety is sometimes relied upon as a reason for refusing an adjustment.

It is often expressed as:

• this would not be safe
• there are health and safety concerns
• we cannot allow this due to risk

These statements are frequently made without clear evidence.

What health and safety means :Health and safety concerns relate to actual risks of harm arising from the adjustment.

They must be based on:

• identifiable risks
• to identifiable people
• in identifiable circumstances

They are not concerned with:

• general unease
• assumptions about risk
• speculative concerns

The correct test

To rely on health and safety as a reason for refusal, the organisation must show:

that, once the adjustment and any associated mitigation are in place, a real and significant risk of harm would remain

This must be supported by:

objective evidence or appropriate professional assessment not assumption.

What must be shown

The organisation must provide evidence of:

• what the specific risk is
• who would be at risk
• how that risk would arise
• how likely it is to occur
• how serious the consequences would be

This must be assessed on the basis of:

the adjustment and any reasonable steps that could be taken to reduce the risk

General statements about safety are not sufficient.

Risk must be assessed after mitigation

Any assessment of health and safety must take into account:

• adjustments to the environment
• changes to working practices
• additional support
• or any other reasonable mitigation measures

It is not sufficient to identify a risk in the absence of these measures.

The relevant question is whether a significant risk remains after mitigation has been properly considered and applied.

For example, a child with autism may be considered at risk of becoming distressed and leaving a school event such as a sports day. However, that risk is not fixed. It may be addressed by providing appropriate support, such as one-to-one supervision. Where such measures remove or reduce the risk to an acceptable level, the original risk cannot be relied upon as a reason for exclusion. The relevant question is whether a significant risk remains after appropriate adjustments have been put in place.

A risk that can be eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level through reasonable adjustment does not justify refusal.

Requirement to consider mitigation

If a risk is identified, the organisation must also show:

what steps were considered to reduce or manage that risk, and why those steps would not be effective

Refusal cannot be justified if the risk can reasonably be mitigated.

Relationship to refusal

Health and safety is a relevant factor, but it is not decisive.

It does not justify refusal unless:

• the risk is real and significant
• it is supported by evidence
• it remains after mitigation
• and it outweighs the disadvantage experienced by the disabled person if the adjustment is not made

Key principle

Health and safety must be assessed after mitigation, not before it.

A risk that can be reduced to an acceptable level does not justify refusal.

4.5 Effectiveness

Effectiveness may be relied upon as a reason for refusing an adjustment.

It is often expressed as:

• “this won’t work”
• “this won’t solve the problem”

These statements are frequently made without proper assessment.

What effectiveness means

Effectiveness concerns whether an adjustment:

removes or reduces the disadvantage experienced by the disabled person

The correct test

To rely on effectiveness as a reason for refusal, the organisation must show:

that the adjustment would not reduce the relevant disadvantage in any meaningful way

This must be based on:

• objective evidence not assumption.

What is not sufficient

The following do not demonstrate lack of effectiveness:

• “we don’t think this will help”
• “this would not completely solve the problem”

Clarification on limited benefit

Where an adjustment produces only a limited reduction in disadvantage, this does not make it ineffective. The extent of its benefit may be relevant to cost or proportionality, but not to whether it is effective.

Key principle

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

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 includes direct financial cost, staff time, and resources required to implement and maintain the adjustment. Cost must be considered in the context of the organisation as a whole and not limited to immediate or local expenditure.

Cost is not a standalone test. It must be considered after all other factors, including whether the adjustment is practicable, whether it is effective, whether any disruption or impact can be mitigated, and whether any risks can be managed. An adjustment that is practicable, effective, and manageable must then be assessed in terms of whether the cost of providing it is justified in the circumstances.

Where an adjustment involves no cost, or minimal cost, there will be little or no justification for refusal.

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 and implement the adjustment.

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.

Cost must be assessed against the resources of the organisation as a whole, not a single department, a local budget, or an individual manager’s allocation. Internal budget structures do not determine reasonableness. Larger organisations with greater resources will be expected to bear greater cost.

Tribunals have recognised that adjustments may involve substantial cost, particularly in professional or skilled roles. Cost will only justify refusal where it is significant and disproportionate when considered against the organisation’s overall resources, the benefit of the adjustment, and the consequences of not making it. There is no fixed threshold. However, the fact that an adjustment involves cost does not, in itself, make it unreasonable. Case law demonstrates that relatively high levels of cost may still be considered reasonable, depending on the circumstances.

Cost must not be considered in isolation. The assessment must include the benefit of the adjustment, any improvement in efficiency or performance, and any reduction in other costs. An adjustment may increase productivity, reduce errors, or improve overall efficiency. In such cases, the net cost may be reduced or eliminated.

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 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.

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.

📄 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.

The purpose of this appendix is not to provide an exhaustive legal analysis, but to identify key authorities that illustrate and support the approach taken in this document.

---

1. The purpose of reasonable adjustments

In Archibald v Fife Council, the House of Lords confirmed that the duty to make reasonable adjustments may require employers to treat a disabled person more favourably than others in order to remove disadvantage.

This reflects the principle that the duty is directed towards achieving a fair outcome, not identical treatment.

---

2. Avoiding disadvantage (not merely recognising it)

In Paulley v FirstGroup plc, the Supreme Court emphasised that the duty requires positive steps to remove barriers that place disabled people at a disadvantage.

The purpose of the duty is to enable access and participation. It is not satisfied by maintaining policies that continue disadvantage, nor by taking minimal or token steps that fail to address it in substance.

Where an adjustment would remove a disadvantage, the expectation is that it will be made unless it can be objectively demonstrated that it would be unreasonable to do so.

Where complete removal is not possible, steps must still be taken to reduce the disadvantage so far as is reasonable. However, the existence of a partial solution does not justify stopping short of a more effective adjustment if that adjustment is practicable and proportionate.

---

3. Structured analysis and evidence

In Environment Agency v Rowan, the Employment Appeal Tribunal emphasised the need to:

• identify the relevant provision, criterion or practice (PCP),
• identify the substantial disadvantage, and
• consider the steps that could remove or reduce that disadvantage

This reflects the requirement for a structured and evidence-based analysis. Conclusions must be supported by evidence, not assertion.

---

4. Cost and proportionality

In Cordell v Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the tribunal considered whether very substantial cost could justify refusal.

The case demonstrates that:

• there is no fixed financial threshold
• cost must be assessed in context
• even significant cost may be reasonable depending on the circumstances

The key question is whether the cost is disproportionate when weighed against the benefit of the adjustment and the organisation’s resources.

---

5. Adjustments may require change

Case law consistently recognises that reasonable adjustments may require:

• changes to working arrangements
• redistribution of duties
• departure from standard procedures

The fact that an adjustment requires change does not make it unreasonable. The question is whether it is practicable and proportionate in the circumstances.

---

6. Overall principle

Taken together, the authorities demonstrate that:

• the duty is directed towards removing disadvantage
• adjustments are the default position
• refusal requires objective justification
• factors such as cost, disruption, or impact must be evidenced, not asserted

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.