Published by South Yorkshire People Partners | HR Guidance for SMEs
Few areas of employment law carry as much risk — or as much opportunity — as reasonable adjustments. Get it right and you keep valued employees, build an inclusive culture and stay compliant. Get it wrong and you face an employment tribunal, reputational damage, and potentially significant compensation awards. This article sets out what the law requires, what the key cases tell us, and what both employers and employees should do in practice.
What Are Reasonable Adjustments?
The duty to make reasonable adjustments is rooted in the Equality Act 2010. Under sections 20 and 21, employers are legally required to take positive steps to remove or reduce disadvantages experienced by disabled employees or job applicants. Critically, this duty is proactive — as ACAS guidance makes clear, it does not only arise when an employee makes a formal request. If an employer knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that an employee is disabled, the duty is already engaged.
A disability under the Act is a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Mental health conditions — including anxiety, depression, ADHD and autism — are included, provided they meet this threshold.
The duty applies across all stages of the employment lifecycle: recruitment, onboarding, day-to-day management, performance processes, attendance management, and offboarding.
The Four Tests: Practicable, Proportionate, Sustainable and Effective
When assessing whether an adjustment is genuinely “reasonable,” the Society of Occupational Medicine recommends employers consider whether the proposed adjustment is:
- Practicable — can it actually be implemented given the nature of the role and the workplace?
- Proportionate — is the adjustment reasonable relative to the size, structure and resources of the business?
- Sustainable — can the adjustment be maintained over the long term without causing operational difficulty?
- Effective — will it actually remove or reduce the disadvantage the employee is experiencing?
These four tests give employers a practical framework for working through requests in a structured, defensible way.
Common Types of Reasonable Adjustment
There is no fixed list of reasonable adjustments, and the CIPD rightly emphasises that there is no “one size fits all” approach. Adjustments must be tailored to the individual and their specific circumstances. That said, common categories include:
Physical adaptations — installing ramps or accessible facilities, providing ergonomic equipment, adapting a workstation, or providing specialist technology or software.
Changes to working arrangements — adjusting hours, allowing remote or hybrid working, phased returns to work after illness, or modifying shift patterns.
Changes to job roles — reallocating tasks that are particularly difficult because of the disability, adjusting performance targets or deadlines, or modifying role requirements during a recovery period.
Time off — allowing absence for medical appointments, rehabilitation, or treatment without triggering disciplinary action; or counting disability-related absence separately from general sickness absence.
Neurodiversity support — providing clear and unambiguous task instructions, reducing multitasking requirements, offering workplace coaching, providing assistive technology, and arranging ADHD or neurodiversity awareness training for teams.
As the TUC notes in its guidance, adjustments can also include allowing an employee to be absent during working hours for rehabilitation, assessment or medical treatment.
The Burden Falls on the Employer
This point cannot be overstated: the burden is on the employer. The CIPD confirms that employees are not required to suggest their own adjustments — though case law recommends they be consulted and listened to. An employer cannot simply wait to be told what is needed.
Once an employer has knowledge of a disability — whether through the employee disclosing it directly, through occupational health, or because it has become evident — they must actively consider what adjustments are needed and engage in dialogue with the employee. A failure to explore adjustments, or to act on occupational health recommendations, is not a defence.
When an Adjustment May Not Be Reasonable
The duty to make reasonable adjustments is not absolute. Employers may legitimately conclude that a proposed adjustment is not reasonable. Factors that tribunals will consider — drawing on the framework developed by the Society of Occupational Medicine — include:
- Financial and operational burden — the cost of the adjustment relative to the size and resources of the business. A small SME is not held to the same standard as a multinational.
- Workforce absence or capacity — the extent to which implementing the adjustment would require other employees to take on additional duties that are unreasonable.
- Impact on other workers or safe staffing — particularly relevant in health, care, and safety-critical environments.
- Practicality and role-specific constraints — some roles have essential requirements that cannot reasonably be altered; adjustments cannot require an employee to be placed in a role for which they do not meet the essential criteria.
- Health and safety — where an adjustment would create a genuine safety risk, this is a legitimate reason to decline it, though employers should explore alternatives before refusing.
- Previous adjustments and their effectiveness — if adjustments have already been made and have not resolved the disadvantage, or have not been engaged with, this is a relevant consideration.
Importantly, the size and resources of a business are central to the assessment. As the CIPD community guidance notes, what is reasonable for a large employer bears no resemblance to what is reasonable for a small business. Tribunals will take this into account. A start-up with ten employees cannot reasonably be expected to fund costly structural alterations; a national employer almost certainly can.
However — and this is critical — an employer who decides not to implement a requested reasonable adjustment must be able to demonstrate that the refusal is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This is not simply a matter of personal preference or operational inconvenience. The employer must identify a legitimate business objective and show that declining the adjustment is genuinely necessary and proportionate in pursuit of that objective. Cost alone is rarely sufficient justification.
What the Case Law Tells Us
Tribunal cases provide invaluable insight into how these principles are applied in practice. The following cases illustrate several key themes.
Disability — What Counts? J v DLA Piper UK LLP [2010]
This Employment Appeal Tribunal case is important for understanding when a condition qualifies as a disability. The EAT addressed the correct approach to mental health impairments, confirming that a claimant with a history of recurrent depressive episodes could be regarded as disabled throughout — even in intervals between episodes — where the underlying condition was ongoing rather than a series of separate illnesses. For employers, the lesson is not to assume that because an employee appears well at a given time, the disability is no longer present.
Associative Discrimination — EBR Attridge Law LLP v Coleman [2010]
This landmark case established the principle of associative discrimination in disability cases. Ms Coleman was not herself disabled, but was the primary carer for her disabled son. The EAT confirmed — following a referral to the European Court of Justice — that direct discrimination and harassment on the grounds of another person’s disability falls within the scope of the law. Employers must be mindful that their obligations extend beyond employees who are themselves disabled.
Note: while associative discrimination applies to direct discrimination and harassment, the duty to make reasonable adjustments applies specifically to the disabled employee, not to associated carers.
Attendance Policies — Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015]
In this Court of Appeal case, Ms Griffiths suffered from post-viral fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. She sought two adjustments to her employer’s attendance management policy: that her disability-related absence be disregarded for the purposes of a written warning, and that her future absence trigger point be extended. The Court confirmed that the duty to make reasonable adjustments can apply to attendance management policies. However, the adjustments she sought were found not to be reasonable on the specific facts, given the anticipated length and frequency of her future absences. The case is a reminder that while the duty arises, it does not follow automatically that every requested adjustment is reasonable.
Role Criteria — Chowdhury v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2025]
In this very recent EAT decision, Mr Chowdhury suffered from plantar fasciitis and was unable to continue in his station-patrol role. He argued that he should have been redeployed to alternative internal roles. The EAT upheld the tribunal’s finding that redeployment is not a reasonable adjustment where the employee does not meet the essential criteria for the alternative role — and that displacing an existing employee to create a vacancy would not be required. This is significant for SMEs: employers must make genuine efforts to explore alternatives, but are not obliged to create roles that do not exist or to set aside essential competency requirements.
Neurodiversity — Khorram v Capgemini UK Plc [2025]
This is one of the most important recent cases for understanding the modern scope of reasonable adjustments. Bahar Khorram, a senior cloud technologist with ADHD, joined Capgemini in 2023 but was dismissed during her probation period following performance concerns. The tribunal found that Capgemini had failed to make reasonable adjustments in a number of respects, including a failure to implement occupational health’s recommendation that ADHD and neurodiversity awareness training be provided to colleagues. The tribunal was clear: Capgemini had received the occupational health report but simply failed to act on it. Crucially, the training could have been delivered in a way that did not single out Ms Khorram — the employer’s failure to find a workable solution did not excuse the omission. The injury to feelings award was £10,000. The case confirms that neurodiversity awareness training for colleagues can itself be a reasonable adjustment, and that employers must treat occupational health recommendations as actionable, not advisory.
The Proportionality Balance — Hensman v Ministry of Defence [2014]
Mr Hensman was employed by the Ministry of Defence and had Asperger’s syndrome. Following a conviction for covert filming of a colleague, he was dismissed. The Employment Tribunal found unfair dismissal and discrimination arising from disability; the Ministry of Defence appealed. The EAT found the Tribunal had erred in its proportionality assessment under section 15 of the Equality Act, focusing too narrowly on the sentencing remarks in the criminal proceedings rather than conducting a full balancing exercise. The case is a useful reminder that proportionality requires a genuine, wide-ranging analysis — not a shortcut.
The Role of Occupational Health
Occupational health plays a pivotal role in the reasonable adjustments process, and the cases make clear that employers cannot simply commission an occupational health report and then file it away. As Khorram v Capgemini demonstrates — and as the ACAS guidance stresses — getting an OH report is not enough; you have to act on it.
ACAS recommends that when considering reasonable adjustments, employers should hold a meeting with the employee, agree a plan, obtain occupational health advice where appropriate, and put in place a regular review. Adjustments should not be set and forgotten — they should be revisited to ensure they remain effective and appropriate as circumstances change.
Access to Work: Practical Support Available
Both employers and employees should be aware of the Access to Work scheme, run by the Department for Work and Pensions. Access to Work can provide practical and financial support towards the cost of adjustments that go beyond what an employer might reasonably fund alone — including specialist equipment, support workers, mental health support, and travel assistance.
This can be a genuinely valuable resource for smaller businesses where cost is a legitimate concern. Full information is available at: www.gov.uk/access-to-work
A Note on the Scale of the Issue
The TUC’s May 2025 report on disabled workers’ access to reasonable adjustments is sobering reading. Surveying 1,000 disabled workers, it found that over half of those who requested adjustments had either none or only some of their requests implemented. Almost one in five employers reportedly told employees the financial cost was too high, and around one in five said the adjustment would not resolve the disadvantage. With 5.5 million disabled people currently in work in the UK, the TUC’s conclusion — that lack of reasonable adjustments is “holding disabled people back” — is backed by significant evidence. For employers, the reputational and legal risks of getting this wrong are real and increasing.
Key Takeaways for Employers
- The duty is proactive — you do not need to wait for a formal request.
- Consult the employee; they know their own needs best, even if they cannot always articulate the solution.
- Involve occupational health where the situation warrants it — and act on the advice you receive.
- Document everything: the assessment, the consultation, the adjustments agreed, and the review process.
- Consider whether Access to Work can help bridge any financial gap.
- Assess each request against the four tests: practicable, proportionate, sustainable and effective.
- Remember that tribunals will take the size and resources of your business into account — but cost alone will not justify refusing a reasonable adjustment without a proportionate legitimate aim.
- If you decide not to implement an adjustment, be clear and specific about why — and take professional advice.
Key Takeaways for Employees
- You have the right to request adjustments and to be consulted throughout the process.
- Put requests in writing and be specific about the disadvantage you are experiencing and the adjustment you believe would help.
- Occupational health reports can strengthen your case — consider asking your employer to refer you.
- Access to Work is available to you directly as well as through your employer.
- If your employer refuses a reasonable adjustment, seek advice from ACAS, Citizens Advice, your trade union, or an employment solicitor.
This article is intended as general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Employment law is fact-specific and circumstances vary. If you are dealing with a reasonable adjustments situation — whether as an employer or employee — professional HR or legal advice is strongly recommended.
For SME employers in South Yorkshire seeking practical, straightforward HR support with reasonable adjustments or any other people matter, contact South Yorkshire People Partners at sypphr.co.uk.
