Understanding “Reasonable”: Factors in UK Employment Tribunals

When disputes about reasonable adjustments reach an employment tribunal, the question is rarely emotional. It is analytical.

Tribunals do not ask whether an employer meant well. They ask whether the employer acted reasonably, based on evidence, context, and the purpose of the Equality Act.

For HR and legal readers, this matters because tribunal reasoning is consistent, even when outcomes differ. Understanding the factors tribunals rely on is the difference between a defensible decision and an exposed one.

The tribunal’s starting point

Tribunals start from the statutory duty in the Equality Act 2010:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20

The duty is to take reasonable steps to remove a substantial disadvantage caused by:

• a workplace provision, criterion, or practice

• a physical feature

• the absence of an auxiliary aid or service

The adjustment does not need to be perfect. It needs to be reasonable in context.

What tribunals actually assess

Across tribunal decisions, a small set of factors appears repeatedly. No single factor decides the case. Tribunals look at the overall balance.

1) Effectiveness: did the adjustment reduce the disadvantage?

This is the most important factor.

Tribunals ask:

• What was the actual disadvantage?

• Would the proposed adjustment have removed or reduced it?

• Did the employer properly understand the barrier?

Adjustments that do not address the real problem are often deemed unreasonable, even if they sound supportive.

Conversely, refusing an adjustment that clearly would have reduced the disadvantage is high risk.

2) Practicality and implementation

Tribunals examine whether the adjustment was realistically achievable.

This includes:

• how quickly it could be implemented

• whether it required complex restructuring

• whether temporary or trial arrangements were possible

Importantly, tribunals are sceptical of arguments that something was “too difficult” when no trial was attempted.

3) Cost relative to resources

Cost is relevant, but never in isolation.

Tribunals look at:

• the absolute cost

• the employer’s size and financial resources

• whether the cost was one-off or ongoing

• whether funding or alternatives were explored

Large employers are expected to absorb costs that would be unreasonable for small ones. Refusals based on cost are closely scrutinised if no exploration of alternatives took place.

4) Availability of external support

Tribunals routinely consider whether Access to Work or similar support could have funded or reduced the cost of an adjustment:
https://www.gov.uk/access-to-work

Employers who refuse adjustments without considering available funding weaken their position significantly.

5) Impact on the business and others

Tribunals will consider operational impact, but they draw a sharp line between:

• genuine operational disruption, and

• inconvenience or team preference

Arguments based on “fairness to others” or “setting a precedent” carry little weight unless they are tied to concrete operational evidence.

6) Health and safety

Health and safety can justify refusal, but only where:

• the risk is specific and evidenced

• mitigation options were explored

• the risk could not reasonably be managed

Generalised safety concerns rarely succeed without assessment.

7) The employer’s process and reasoning

Tribunals look closely at how decisions were made.

They examine:

• whether the employer engaged with the employee

• whether alternatives were discussed

• whether decisions were explained

• whether reasoning was recorded

A reasonable decision made through a poor process is still vulnerable.

What tribunals are unimpressed by

Certain arguments appear regularly in unsuccessful defences.

Tribunals consistently reject:

• “We’ve never done this before”

• “Other employees wouldn’t like it”

• “The manager didn’t think it was necessary”

• “The employee didn’t ask clearly enough”

• “We didn’t have a policy”

These are opinions, not evidence.

Case patterns tribunals often see

Without naming individual cases, some patterns recur across tribunal outcomes.

Adjustments often found reasonable

• flexible start or finish times

• temporary workload changes

• remote or hybrid working where the role allowed

• written instructions or altered communication methods

• low-cost equipment

Adjustments often lawfully refused

• requests removing the core function of a role

• adjustments creating unmitigated safety risks

• high-cost changes with no exploration of funding or alternatives

The deciding factor is rarely the adjustment itself. It is whether the employer could show they thought properly and acted proportionately.

Documentation matters more than people expect

Tribunals place significant weight on written records.

They ask:

• What was requested?

• What was considered?

• Why was a decision made?

• What alternatives were explored?

Where there is no record, tribunals often infer that proper consideration did not take place.

This is why informal, undocumented handling is risky, even when intentions are good.

Why tribunal reasoning matters for employers now

Most employers will never face a tribunal. But tribunal reasoning sets the standard that employers are expected to meet.

ACAS guidance reflects these same principles and is often used as a benchmark for reasonableness in practice:
https://www.acas.org.uk/reasonable-adjustments

If your process would not make sense to a neutral third party, it is unlikely to survive scrutiny.

Where Mosaic fits into tribunal expectations

Mosaic is designed around the exact factors tribunals look for.

It helps employers:

• clearly identify the disadvantage

• explore and record adjustment options

• document cost, practicality, and alternatives

• note funding checks such as Access to Work

• create a consistent written record

• demonstrate that decisions were reasoned, not reactive

Mosaic does not guarantee outcomes.
It ensures the process aligns with how tribunals actually assess reasonableness.

That alignment is what protects organisations.

Next Steps

Read more here

• Manager guidance:

• Workplace Passport explainer:

FAQs: how tribunals decide reasonable adjustments

Is cost the main factor tribunals consider?

No. Cost is one factor, but effectiveness and proportionality carry more weight.

Do tribunals expect employers to agree every adjustment?

No. They expect employers to engage, consider evidence, and aim to remove the disadvantage.

Does a good process matter as much as the decision?

Yes. Poor process undermines otherwise reasonable decisions.

Who Pays for Workplace Adjustments? (Employer vs External Support)

In the UK, the starting position is simple: employers are responsible for paying for reasonable adjustments.

This is part of the legal duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Adjustments are not optional extras or personal expenses. They are a workplace responsibility.

You can read the statutory duty here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20

Where confusion often creeps in is around cost, external funding, and what happens when an employer says they can’t afford an adjustment.

Who normally pays for reasonable adjustments?

In most cases, the employer pays.

This includes adjustments such as:

• changes to working hours or patterns

• changes to duties or workload

• altered performance processes

• communication adjustments

• low-cost equipment or software

• changes to the work environment

Many of the most effective adjustments cost little or nothing. They involve changes to how work is organised rather than buying specialist equipment.

ACAS is clear that cost alone is rarely a good reason not to make an adjustment:
https://www.acas.org.uk/reasonable-adjustments

When does external funding come into play?

For more expensive or specialist adjustments, external funding may be available, most commonly through Access to Work.

Access to Work is a government scheme that can fund or contribute towards:

• specialist equipment or software

• workplace assessments

• support workers or job coaches

• travel costs related to disability

You can find full details here:
https://www.gov.uk/access-to-work

Importantly:

• Access to Work does not replace the employer’s duty

• Employers are expected to consider it before refusing an adjustment on cost grounds

Refusing an adjustment without exploring available funding is risky.

Does the employee ever have to pay?

Generally, no.

Employees should not be expected to pay for reasonable adjustments themselves. Asking someone to fund their own adjustments undermines the legal duty and can amount to discrimination.

In rare cases, employees may choose to use personal equipment, but that should be a choice, not an expectation.

What if the adjustment is genuinely expensive?

Cost can be relevant, but it is judged in proportion to the employer’s resources.

A small employer is not expected to do the same as a large one. But even small employers are expected to:

• explore alternatives

• consider phasing or trials

• look at external funding

• explain decisions clearly

A simple “we can’t afford it” without evidence or exploration will not stand up well.

What If My Employer Won’t Make Reasonable Adjustments?

If your employer refuses to make reasonable adjustments, it does not automatically mean they are acting unlawfully. But it does mean the decision should be scrutinised.

The law allows refusal only in limited circumstances, and the employer must still aim to remove the disadvantage in another way.

First: understand why the adjustment was refused

A refusal should come with a clear explanation.

You are entitled to ask:

• why the adjustment was considered unreasonable

• what evidence was relied on

• whether alternatives were considered

• whether funding options were explored

If the explanation is vague, delayed, or undocumented, that is a red flag.

Ask for the decision in writing

A written explanation:

• slows down instinctive refusals

• makes reasoning clearer

• creates a record if the issue escalates

You do not need to be confrontational. A simple request for clarity is reasonable.

Propose or request alternatives

An employer does not have to agree to the exact adjustment requested, but they do have to engage.

If one option was refused:

• ask what would be considered reasonable

• suggest trial periods

• ask whether external support could help

A refusal that leaves the disadvantage untouched is where legal risk increases.

Use internal routes if needed

If informal discussion stalls, you may:

• raise the issue with HR (if available)

• raise a formal grievance

• ask for occupational health input

These steps often prompt more structured consideration.

Know when it becomes a legal issue

A failure to make reasonable adjustments is a specific form of disability discrimination.

If the process breaks down, employees may:

• seek early conciliation

• bring a claim in an employment tribunal

Many disputes resolve before this point, but risk increases sharply when decisions are undocumented or inconsistent.

Where Mosaic helps on both sides of this problem

This is where things often go wrong: not at the level of principle, but in process.

Employers struggle to:

• identify appropriate adjustments

• judge cost and reasonableness consistently

• explore funding properly

• document decisions clearly

Employees struggle to:

• explain barriers clearly

• know what alternatives exist

• understand why decisions were made

• avoid starting again each time something changes

Mosaic exists to bridge that gap.

It provides:

• a structured way to identify adjustments

• clear prompts that surface low-cost options

• space to record cost considerations and funding checks

• tools to document refusals and alternatives

• continuity across managers and roles

Mosaic doesn’t force outcomes.
It makes decisions clear, fair, and defensible.

FAQs: paying for and refusing reasonable adjustments

Who pays for reasonable adjustments at work?

In most cases, the employer pays. External funding like Access to Work may support more expensive adjustments.

Can an employer refuse adjustments because of cost?

Only if the cost is genuinely disproportionate and alternatives or funding have been explored.

What should I do if my employer refuses reasonable adjustments?

Ask for the reasoning in writing, request alternatives, and escalate internally if needed.

Do employees ever have to pay?

Generally no. Reasonable adjustments are a workplace responsibility.

Can an Employer Refuse a Requested Adjustment? (Understanding the Limits)

Yes. An employer can refuse a requested adjustment.

But the limits are tight, and the bar is higher than many organisations realise.

In UK law, the question is never simply “Can we say no?”
The question is whether refusing that adjustment is reasonable, evidenced, and still aimed at removing the disadvantage.

Many employers get this wrong, not because they intend to discriminate, but because refusals are often based on instinct, convenience, or team pressure rather than a defensible process.

The legal starting point

Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to avoid disabled people being placed at a substantial disadvantage at work. A failure to make reasonable adjustments is a form of disability discrimination in its own right.

You can read the statutory duty here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20

That means refusal is the exception, not the default.

What refusal is actually about

Refusing an adjustment is not about rejecting support altogether. It is about deciding that a specific request is not reasonable in that form, in that context.

Crucially:

• Employers do not have to agree to the exact adjustment requested.

• Employers do have to engage, consider, and aim to remove the disadvantage in another way.

A refusal that leaves the disadvantage untouched is where legal risk appears.

When can an employer lawfully refuse an adjustment?

There are only a small number of defensible reasons for refusal. Each must be backed by evidence, not preference.

1) The adjustment does not reduce the disadvantage

If the requested adjustment does not address the actual barrier at work, an employer can refuse it and propose a more effective alternative.

This is a correction, not a denial of support.

2) The adjustment creates a genuine safety risk

Health and safety can justify refusal, but only where:

• the risk is specific and real, and

• it cannot be reduced through another adjustment.

Vague concerns or general discomfort do not meet this threshold.

3) The adjustment removes an essential part of the job

Employers are expected to adapt roles, but not to remove their core purpose.

If an adjustment would eliminate an essential requirement of the role altogether, refusal may be lawful. The key is whether the task is genuinely fundamental, not just historically assumed.

ACAS makes this distinction clear in its guidance on reasonable adjustments:
https://www.acas.org.uk/reasonable-adjustments

4) The cost is genuinely disproportionate

Cost can be relevant, but it is rarely decisive on its own.

Employers must consider:

• cost relative to organisational resources

• whether cheaper alternatives exist

• whether changes could be phased or trialled

• whether external funding could help

One option frequently overlooked is Access to Work, which can fund equipment, software, or support:
https://www.gov.uk/access-to-work

Refusing without exploring these options is risky.

5) The request conflicts with legal or regulatory obligations

This is uncommon, but relevant in regulated environments where certain activities are legally restricted.

6) An equally effective alternative exists

An employer can lawfully refuse one request if they offer another adjustment that removes the disadvantage just as effectively.

In practice, this is often the strongest and safest outcome.

Reasons that are not lawful grounds for refusal

Some reasons sound reasonable in everyday management conversations, but they do not stand up legally.

Not lawful on their own:

• “Others will want the same”

• “We’ve never done this before”

• “It wouldn’t be fair on the team”

• “The manager doesn’t like it”

• “This is a performance issue”

• “I don’t think they really need it”

ACAS explicitly warns against decisions based on assumptions, feelings, or cultural discomfort rather than evidence:
https://www.acas.org.uk/supporting-disabled-people/workplace-conversations-about-disability

What makes a refusal defensible?

A defensible refusal shows that the employer:

• identified the real disadvantage

• genuinely considered the request

• relied on evidence, not instinct

• explored alternatives

• aimed to reduce the disadvantage

• documented the reasoning

A refusal without documentation is weak by default.

The real risk: inconsistency and silence

Most employers do not get into trouble because they refuse one adjustment. They get into trouble because:

• similar requests are handled differently

• decisions are made verbally and forgotten

• delays drag on without explanation

• alternatives are never clearly offered

From the outside, this looks arbitrary. Arbitrary decisions are hard to defend.

Why this is exactly where TryMosaic helps

This is where TryMosaic earns its keep.

TryMosaic helps employers handle refusals properly, not just avoid them.

It provides:

• structured prompts to identify the real barrier

• a clear record of what was requested

• space to document why a request was refused

• support for proposing and tracking alternatives

• consistency across managers and teams

• an auditable trail that shows the decision was reasonable

Mosaic doesn’t force employers to say yes. It ensures that when an employer says no, they can show why.

That distinction matters.

A practical check against ACAS expectations

One of the hardest parts of refusing an adjustment is knowing whether your reasoning would stand up against ACAS guidance, not just internal opinion.

That’s why Mosaic includes an ACAS alignment checker. It allows managers and HR teams to sense-check proposed decisions against recognised ACAS principles before a refusal is confirmed. It doesn’t replace judgement, and it doesn’t give legal advice. What it does is flag where a decision may be relying on assumption, missing evidence, or skipping exploration of alternatives.

For employers, that means fewer “gut feel” refusals and fewer surprises later.
For employees, it means greater confidence that decisions are being made against a consistent external standard, not personal preference.

In practice, this is often the difference between a refusal that escalates and one that is understood, documented, and defensible.

Next steps

Read more here

• Manager guidance:

• Workplace Passport explainer:

FAQs: can an employer refuse reasonable adjustments?

Can an employer ever refuse reasonable adjustments?

An employer can refuse a specific adjustment if it is not reasonable, but they should still aim to remove the disadvantage in another way.

Does cost automatically justify refusal?

No. Cost must be genuinely disproportionate and considered alongside alternatives and funding options.

Is refusing an adjustment discrimination?

Refusal can be lawful if properly justified. But failing to make reasonable adjustments when required is a form of disability discrimination.

Do refusals need to be written down?

There is no formal requirement to document refusals, but undocumented decisions are very difficult to defend.

Employer Obligations for Reasonable Adjustments (UK)

The duty to make reasonable adjustments is not abstract. It is an active legal obligation placed on employers.

In the UK, employers are required to take steps to prevent disabled people being placed at a disadvantage at work. This duty sits at the heart of the Equality Act 2010 and applies to day-to-day work, recruitment, progression, and how problems are handled when they arise.

You can read the statutory duty here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20

What matters in practice is not whether an employer cares, but whether they can show they have done what the law requires.

The core employer duty (in plain English)

An employer must:

• identify when a disabled person is disadvantaged at work, and

• take reasonable steps to remove or reduce that disadvantage.

This duty is ongoing. It does not end once an adjustment is agreed. It reappears when work changes, roles change, or barriers resurface.

Crucially, a failure to make reasonable adjustments is a form of disability discrimination in its own right.

What employers are expected to do in practice

Meeting the duty is not about guessing or waiting for perfect requests. It is about having a process that works reliably.

1) Anticipate, not just react

Employers are expected to think ahead. This includes:

• considering accessibility when designing roles and processes

• building flexibility into policies where possible

• recognising that not all disabilities are visible or static

Waiting until someone is already struggling increases risk.

2) Respond promptly when issues arise

Once an employer knows, or should reasonably know, that disability-related disadvantage exists, delay becomes a problem.

Obligations include:

• engaging in discussion about barriers at work

• considering adjustments without unnecessary delay

• avoiding “wait and see” approaches that prolong disadvantage

Silence or slow action is often the point where employers fall short.

3) Focus on barriers, not medical proof

The duty is triggered by impact at work, not by labels or diagnoses.

Employers should:

• ask what part of the job is difficult

• understand when and how the difficulty shows up

• explore practical ways to reduce it

Over-fixating on medical evidence often delays support and increases exposure.

4) Consider a range of adjustment options

Employers are not required to agree to the exact adjustment requested, but they are required to:

• genuinely consider the request

• explore alternatives

• aim to remove the disadvantage

Common adjustments include changes to hours, location, workload, communication, equipment, or processes. Many are low cost or free.

ACAS sets out this expectation clearly in its guidance for employers:
https://www.acas.org.uk/reasonable-adjustments

5) Apply decisions consistently

One of the clearest employer obligations is consistency.

Employers must avoid:

• different managers handling similar requests in different ways

• adjustments depending on personal attitudes

• informal agreements that disappear over time

Inconsistency is one of the fastest routes to legal risk.

6) Keep a clear written record

The law does not require perfection, but it does require reasonableness. Reasonableness is hard to demonstrate without records.

Good practice includes:

• recording what was requested

• documenting what was agreed and why

• noting alternatives considered

• setting review points

If a decision is not written down, it is difficult to defend later.

Where employers most often fail

Most employers do not fail because they refuse adjustments outright. They fail because:

• the duty is triggered but missed

• conversations happen but are not captured

• adjustments are agreed but not implemented

• reviews never take place

• knowledge is lost when managers or roles change

From a legal perspective, these failures look the same as doing nothing.

Why employers need a system, not just guidance

The Equality Act is clear. ACAS guidance is clear. The gap is execution.

Relying on:

• manager memory

• email trails

• goodwill

• informal conversations

is not enough to meet a legal duty consistently.

This is exactly why organisations use structured approaches like Workplace Passports and centralised adjustment workflows.

Why TryMosaic is built for this obligation

This is where TryMosaic comes in.

TryMosaic is designed specifically to help employers meet their duty to make reasonable adjustments, not just talk about it.

It gives employers:

• a clear route for employees to request adjustments

• structured prompts to identify barriers and suitable options

• a consistent framework managers can rely on

• a single written record of decisions and reasoning

• continuity when managers, roles, or teams change

• an auditable trail that supports compliance

Mosaic does not replace human judgement.
It makes that judgement defensible, consistent, and repeatable.

For employers, that means:

• less guesswork

• fewer missed triggers

• reduced legal risk

• calmer, clearer adjustment conversations

What good compliance actually looks like

Employers who meet their obligations well tend to:

• identify issues earlier

• act faster

• document decisions

• review adjustments regularly

• treat adjustments as part of normal management, not an exception

Those outcomes don’t come from policy documents alone. They come from systems that work in real life.

Next steps

Read more here

• Manager guidance:

• Workplace Passport explainer:

FAQs: employer duty to make reasonable adjustments

Is making reasonable adjustments a legal obligation for employers?

Yes. It is a legal duty under the Equality Act 2010.

Do employers have to anticipate needs?

Employers are expected to think ahead where possible, not simply react after harm has occurred.

Do employers have to do exactly what an employee asks for?

No. Employers can propose alternatives, and turn down adjustments when they’re not reasonable, but they must still aim to remove the disadvantage.

What is the biggest compliance risk for employers?

Inconsistent handling, poor records, and delayed action.

What Legal Rights Do Employees Have to Reasonable Adjustments?

In the UK, reasonable adjustments are not a perk, a favour, or something granted at a manager’s discretion. They are a legal right.

That right exists to protect disabled employees and job applicants from being placed at a disadvantage because of how work is organised, assessed, or managed. It is grounded in the Equality Act 2010, which places a clear duty on employers to act.

Understanding these rights matters, because many people do not realise when the law is on their side, or what they are entitled to expect in practice.

The legal foundation: the Equality Act 2010

The Equality Act 2010 creates a duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people at work. You can read the statutory duty itself here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20

Crucially, the Act treats a failure to make reasonable adjustments as a form of disability discrimination in its own right. An employer does not have to behave maliciously to breach the law. Inaction, delay, or inconsistency can be enough.

Who is protected by these rights?

Legal rights to reasonable adjustments apply to:

• employees

• workers

• job applicants

• some self-employed people where work arrangements apply

These rights apply regardless of organisation size. There is no exemption for small businesses or informal workplaces.

What counts as disability in law?

The Equality Act uses a functional definition. A person is disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term negative effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

This includes many non-visible and fluctuating conditions. It also means someone may be legally protected even if they do not personally identify as disabled.

The focus is on impact, not labels.

What rights do employees and applicants have?

Under UK law, disabled employees and applicants have the right to:

1) Have workplace barriers considered and addressed

If a workplace rule, physical feature, or lack of support puts someone at a disadvantage, the employer must consider reasonable steps to remove or reduce that disadvantage.

2) Request reasonable adjustments without being penalised

Asking for adjustments is not misconduct, poor performance, or a lack of commitment. Employees should not be treated unfavourably because they have raised adjustment needs.

3) Fair treatment during recruitment

Applicants have the right to reasonable adjustments during recruitment, including interviews and assessments, so they can be considered fairly.

4) Ongoing consideration as work changes

Adjustments are not a one-off right. Employees are entitled to have adjustments reviewed when roles, working patterns, health, or environments change.

5) Protection from discrimination

Employees are protected from:

• discrimination arising from disability

• indirect discrimination linked to rigid workplace rules

• harassment related to disability

• victimisation for asserting their rights

Reasonable adjustments sit at the centre of these protections.

What employees are not required to do

It’s equally important to understand what the law does not require from employees.

Employees are not required to:

• disclose unnecessary medical detail

• have a specific diagnosis before support is considered

• know exactly what adjustment will work from the outset

• tolerate disadvantage while an employer “waits and sees”

The right is to engage in a process aimed at removing disadvantage, not to present a perfect solution.

What employers must do when these rights apply

When the duty is triggered, employers are expected to:

• engage in discussion about barriers at work

• consider practical ways to reduce or remove those barriers

• act within a reasonable timeframe

• explain decisions clearly

• explore alternatives if a specific request is not workable

ACAS sets out this expectation clearly in its guidance for employers:
https://www.acas.org.uk/reasonable-adjustments

Ignoring requests, delaying indefinitely, or making decisions based on assumption rather than evidence puts employers at risk.

What happens if rights are not respected?

If reasonable adjustments are not made when they should be, an employee may:

• raise the issue informally or through HR

• raise a formal grievance

• seek early conciliation

• bring a claim in an employment tribunal

Many cases never reach tribunal, but the risk and stress increase sharply when decisions are undocumented or inconsistent.

Why these rights often fail in practice

The law is clear. What usually fails is process.

Common problems include:

• rights being understood differently by different managers

• verbal agreements that are never written down

• adjustments disappearing when roles or managers change

• employees having to re-explain their needs repeatedly

None of these remove the legal right. They just make it harder to enforce.

Why structure protects employee rights

Legal rights are strongest when there is a clear record.

Employees are better protected when:

• requests are captured clearly

• discussions focus on barriers and impact

• decisions and reasoning are written down

• adjustments are reviewed over time

This is why structured approaches like Workplace Passports exist. They help ensure that legal rights are applied consistently, not dependent on who someone reports to.

TryMosaic supports this by giving organisations a simple, auditable way to capture adjustment needs, agree actions, and carry them forward over time, without forcing employees to start again each time something changes.

Next steps

Read more here

• Manager guidance:

• Workplace Passport explainer:

FAQs: legal rights to reasonable adjustments

Are reasonable adjustments a legal right in the UK?

Yes. They are a legal right under the Equality Act 2010, not optional guidance.

Do job applicants have the same rights as employees?

Applicants are protected during recruitment and selection and are entitled to reasonable adjustments in those processes.

Can an employer refuse reasonable adjustments?

An employer can refuse a specific adjustment if it is not reasonable, but they must still aim to remove the disadvantage and should explore alternatives.

Is failing to make reasonable adjustments discrimination?

Yes. Failure to make reasonable adjustments is a specific form of disability discrimination under UK law.

Legal Rights: What Does the Equality Act 2010 Say About Workplace Adjustments?

The Equality Act 2010 is the backbone of workplace adjustment rights in Great Britain. It does not offer suggestions. It sets a legal duty.

That duty is called the duty to make reasonable adjustments. Its purpose is simple: to prevent disabled people being placed at a disadvantage at work because of how jobs, workplaces, or processes are designed.

You can read the statutory wording here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20

Understanding what the Act actually says matters, because many workplace problems arise not from disagreement, but from uncertainty about what the law requires.

What is the duty to make reasonable adjustments?

The Equality Act requires employers to take reasonable steps to remove disadvantages experienced by disabled people at work.

The duty applies when a disabled person is placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with someone who is not disabled, because of:

• a workplace rule, policy, or way of working

• a physical feature of the workplace

• the absence of an aid or support

These are not optional considerations. They are the specific situations the law is designed to address.

Who does the duty apply to?

The duty applies to:

• job applicants

• employees and workers

• some self-employed people where work arrangements apply

It applies regardless of organisation size. There is no exemption for small businesses, start-ups, or charities.

What changes with size is not whether the duty exists, but what is considered reasonable in context.

What counts as a disability under the Act?

The Equality Act uses a functional definition, not a label-based one.

A person is disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term negative effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

This includes many non-visible and fluctuating conditions. It also means someone may be legally protected even if they do not personally identify as disabled.

The focus is on impact, not diagnosis.

When is the duty triggered?

The duty is triggered when:

• a disabled person is disadvantaged at work, and

• the employer knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, about the disability and the disadvantage

This can happen at recruitment, after disclosure, during performance discussions, following absence, or when work changes create new barriers.

Waiting for a perfect request or a formal diagnosis is not required.

What does the law expect employers to do?

The Act does not prescribe a fixed list of adjustments. Instead, it expects employers to:

• identify the disadvantage

• consider steps that would remove or reduce it

• implement changes that are reasonable in the circumstances

ACAS summarises this clearly and is often used as a practical reference point for employers:
https://www.acas.org.uk/reasonable-adjustments

Importantly, employers do not have to agree to every request exactly as made. They do have to engage, explore options, and aim to remove the disadvantage.

What the Equality Act does not allow

The Act does not allow employers to:

• ignore adjustment requests

• delay unreasonably once a need is clear

• rely on assumptions about what someone “should be able to cope with”

• treat disability-related disadvantage as a performance issue without considering adjustments

A failure to make reasonable adjustments is a form of disability discrimination in its own right.

How reasonableness is judged

Reasonableness is judged case by case. Factors commonly considered include:

• whether the adjustment would reduce the disadvantage

• how practical it is to implement

• cost relative to the employer’s resources

• health and safety implications

• whether alternatives exist

The Equality Act sets the framework, but decisions must still be evidence-based and defensible.

Why the law still breaks down in practice

The law itself is clear. What breaks down is implementation.

Common problems include:

• inconsistent decisions between managers

• informal agreements that are never recorded

• adjustments agreed but not reviewed

• knowledge lost when roles or managers change

None of these remove the legal duty. They simply increase risk.

Why structure matters

The Equality Act does not require perfection. It requires reasonable steps.

That means employers need a way to:

• capture when the duty is triggered

• identify suitable adjustments

• record decisions and reasoning

• review adjustments over time

Without structure, even well-meaning organisations end up relying on memory and guesswork.

This is exactly the gap TryMosaic exists to close.

TryMosaic provides a clear, auditable way to identify, agree, and track workplace adjustments so the legal duty is met consistently, without turning every request into a legal exercise.

Next steps

Read more here

• Manager guidance:

• Workplace Passport explainer:

FAQs: Equality Act 2010 and reasonable adjustments

Does the Equality Act require employers to make adjustments?

Yes. The duty to make reasonable adjustments is a legal requirement, not optional guidance.

Are employers required to make adjustments for job applicants?

Yes. The duty applies during recruitment as well as during employment.

Does an employer have to do exactly what an employee asks for?

No. Employers can offer alternatives, but they must still aim to remove the disadvantage.

Is failing to make adjustments discrimination?

Yes. A failure to make reasonable adjustments is a specific form of disability discrimination under the Act.

Do Small Businesses Need to Provide Reasonable Adjustments?

Yes. Small businesses do need to provide reasonable adjustments.

The legal duty to make reasonable adjustments applies regardless of organisation size. There is no minimum headcount, no exemption for start-ups, and no carve-out for “we’re only a small team”.

That duty comes from the Equality Act 2010, which applies to all employers in Great Britain:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20

Where size does matter is not whether the duty exists, but what is considered reasonable in context.

That distinction is where most confusion, and most risk, sits for small employers.

The duty applies to all employers

If you employ people, the duty applies to you.

That includes:

• micro-businesses

• start-ups

• charities

• family-run firms

• growing companies without HR teams

ACAS is explicit that reasonable adjustments apply across organisations of all sizes:
https://www.acas.org.uk/reasonable-adjustments

Being small does not remove the obligation. It only affects how far you can reasonably be expected to go.

What does change for small businesses?

What changes is proportionality.

Reasonableness is judged in context, and that context includes:

• your financial resources

• how your business operates

• how practical a change would be

• whether external funding or support is available

A small business is not expected to absorb the same costs as a large employer. But it is expected to think, explore options, and act where it can.

In practice, many effective adjustments cost little or nothing.

Common low-cost adjustments small businesses can make

Most reasonable adjustments in small organisations are about how work is organised, not buying specialist equipment.

Common examples include:

• flexible start and finish times

• adjusted break patterns

• written instructions instead of verbal-only communication

• clearer priorities and fewer last-minute changes

• quiet working arrangements or agreed focus time

• temporary workload changes during flare-ups or recovery

• home or hybrid working where the role allows

ACAS regularly notes that many adjustments simply involve changing how work is done, rather than spending money:
https://www.acas.org.uk/reasonable-adjustments

Cost is rarely the whole story

Cost often comes up early in small businesses, sometimes as a reflex.

But cost alone is rarely enough to justify refusal. Employers are expected to consider whether:

• a cheaper alternative would reduce the disadvantage

• the adjustment could be trialled

• the cost could be phased

• external funding could help

One option small employers often overlook is Access to Work, a government scheme that can fund equipment, software, or support for disabled employees:
https://www.gov.uk/access-to-work

Failing to consider alternatives before saying no is where small businesses get exposed.

“We don’t have HR” is not a shield

Many small employers handle adjustments informally. That feels human. It also creates risk.

Informal handling usually means:

• decisions live in inboxes or memory

• similar requests are handled differently

• nothing is written down

• reviews don’t happen

• continuity is lost when someone leaves or changes role

None of that removes the legal duty. It just makes it harder to show that decisions were reasonable if challenged.

The real risk for small businesses

The biggest risk for small employers is not deliberate refusal. It’s inconsistency.

One manager agrees something verbally. Another later refuses it. An adjustment works for months, then quietly disappears. An employee moves role and has to start again.

From the outside, that looks arbitrary. Arbitrary decisions are the hardest to defend.

Why this is exactly where Mosaic helps

This is where Mosaic is particularly valuable for small businesses.

Mosaic supports small employers not just to record adjustments, but to identify them properly in the first place. Employees can say their impacts are and the system will provide a list of adjustments to try out. It also includes adjustments tailored to industry and role. What is reasonable in a cafe is different to what’s reasonable in an office.

It also gives small employers:

• a clear route for requesting adjustments

• a consistent way to discuss barriers and solutions

• a simple written record of what was agreed and why

• clarity for managers who are not HR specialists

• continuity when roles, teams, or managers change

You don’t need an HR department to do this well.
You need a system that helps you make reasonable decisions and show your working.

That’s what Mosaic provides.

Next steps

• Manager guidance:

• Workplace Passport explainer:

What Makes a Reasonable Adjustment “Reasonable”? (UK Guide)

Most disputes about reasonable adjustments don’t hinge on whether support should exist. They hinge on one word: reasonable.

That word carries real legal weight. It protects disabled people from arbitrary refusals, and it protects employers from being expected to do the impossible. But it’s also where confusion creeps in, particularly when decisions are driven by instinct rather than evidence.

In UK law, reasonableness is not a vibe. It’s a test that has to stand up if challenged.

What makes an adjustment “reasonable”?

An adjustment is reasonable if it reduces or removes a substantial disadvantage at work and is practical in the context of the employer’s resources and operations.

This framework comes from the Equality Act 2010, which sets the legal duty to make reasonable adjustments
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20

Importantly, employers are not required to agree to the exact adjustment requested. The duty is to remove the disadvantage, not to deliver a specific solution regardless of alternatives.

ACAS is explicit on this point and consistently stresses that many adjustments are simple changes to how work is organised, not expensive interventions:
https://www.acas.org.uk/reasonable-adjustments

The factors that determine reasonableness

When assessing whether an adjustment is reasonable, employers are expected to consider a small number of concrete factors.

These include:

• whether the adjustment actually addresses the barrier

• how practical it is to implement

• the operational impact, not personal inconvenience

• the cost relative to the organisation’s size and resources

• whether funding or external support is available

• whether an alternative adjustment would be equally effective

The Equality and Human Rights Commission frames this as a balancing exercise, not a free pass to refuse support:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/reasonable-adjustments-disabled-people

When “no” can be reasonable

The vast majority of reasonable adjustments should be agreed. Many cost little or nothing and lead to better performance, retention, and morale.

That said, there are limited situations where an employer may lawfully refuse an adjustment. These situations are narrow and must be supported by evidence.

1) The adjustment does not reduce the disadvantage

If the proposed change does not address the actual barrier, an employer can refuse it and offer an alternative that does.

This is not a refusal of support. It’s a correction.

2) The adjustment creates a genuine safety risk

Health and safety can justify refusal, but only where the risk is specific, real, and cannot be reduced through another option.

Vague references to “risk” or “policy” are not enough.

3) The adjustment removes an essential part of the role

Employers are expected to adapt roles, but not to remove their fundamental purpose.

ACAS makes this distinction clear. Adjustments can change how work is done, but not eliminate core duties entirely:
https://www.acas.org.uk/reasonable-adjustments

4) The cost is genuinely disproportionate

Cost alone rarely justifies refusal. What matters is proportionality.

A small organisation may reasonably refuse an adjustment that a large employer would be expected to absorb. Employers should also consider whether Access to Work funding could cover or reduce the cost before relying on cost as a reason to refuse:
https://www.gov.uk/access-to-work

5) The request conflicts with legal or regulatory obligations

This is uncommon, but relevant in regulated environments where certain activities are legally restricted.

6) An equally effective alternative exists

An employer can lawfully refuse one request if they offer a different adjustment that removes the disadvantage just as effectively.

In practice, this is often the most robust outcome.

Reasons that are not reasonable

Some reasons sound intuitive in management conversations but do not hold up legally.

These are not lawful grounds for refusal:

• “Others will want the same”

• “We’ve never done this before”

• “It wouldn’t be fair on the team”

• “The manager doesn’t like it”

• “This is really a performance issue”

• “I don’t think they need it”

ACAS explicitly warns against decisions based on assumptions, discomfort, or cultural norms rather than evidence:
https://www.acas.org.uk/supporting-disabled-people/workplace-conversations-about-disability

Practical examples

Noise-cancelling headphones

Clear yes
A developer in an open-plan office struggles with background noise. A low-cost pair of headphones removes the barrier.
Outcome: Approve.

Discuss and adapt
A receptionist requests full noise cancellation but needs to hear phones and visitors.
Outcome: Adapt. Consider noise-dampening headphones or acoustic screens.

Lawful refusal
A warehouse operative requests headphones that would block safety alarms.
Outcome: Refuse on safety grounds and explore safer alternatives.

Permanent home working

Clear yes
A data analyst does location-independent work and the organisation already supports hybrid working.
Outcome: Approve.

Discuss and adapt
A team leader requests full remote work but supervises on-site staff.
Outcome: Explore hybrid arrangements.

Lawful refusal
A lab technician needs to work with physical samples.
Outcome: Refuse. The role is inherently on-site.

Removing essential duties

Clear yes
Rebalancing minor admin tasks with no material impact.
Outcome: Approve.

Discuss and adapt
A customer service worker asks to avoid calls entirely.
Outcome: Reduce call load and add support.

Lawful refusal
A driver asks to remove all driving.
Outcome: Refuse. Driving is the core of the role.

What makes a refusal defensible?

A defensible refusal shows that:

• the disadvantage was clearly identified

• the request was genuinely considered

• evidence supports the decision

• alternatives were explored

• the aim remained to reduce the disadvantage

• the reasoning would appear fair to an external observer

• the decision is documented

A refusal without a written record is weak by default.

Handling the conversation well

For managers
Be transparent. Keep explanations factual. Avoid moralising about fairness. Offer alternatives and document the outcome.

For employees
Ask for the reasoning in writing. Request alternatives. Share relevant evidence if needed. Escalate only if the process itself breaks down.

The shared objective

A refusal is lawful only when it leads towards a better solution.

The Equality Act duty is not about granting every request. It is about ensuring the employee is not left at a substantial disadvantage.

Handled well, these conversations increase trust and clarity. Handled badly, they undermine both.

This is the gap Mosaic exists to close: turning judgement calls into a clear, consistent, recorded process that protects everyone involved.

Why TryMosaic exists

TryMosaic exists to remove guesswork from these decisions.

It gives organisations a structured way to:

• identify the real disadvantage

• record what was requested

• document the reasoning behind decisions

• explore and track alternatives

• review adjustments as roles and needs change

Not to force every request through.
But to ensure every decision is defensible, fair, and focused on removing disadvantage.

Because the strongest position an employer can be in is not having said yes.
It’s being able to show that whatever decision was made, it was reasonable.

Types of Reasonable Adjustments (with Examples) UK Workplace Guide

Reasonable adjustments are not one thing. They come in different forms, depending on what barrier someone is facing and where that barrier shows up in their working life.

This matters, because many adjustment conversations stall when people jump too quickly to solutions. Someone asks for “flexible working” when the real issue is noise. A manager thinks adjustments mean expensive equipment, when the fix is actually about communication or priorities.

This guide sets out the main types of reasonable adjustments, with clear examples, to help both employees and employers think more precisely about what might help.

1) Physical changes to the workplace

Physical adjustments are often the first thing people picture, but they are only one category.

Examples include:

• ergonomic chairs, desks, keyboards, or mice

• sit-stand desks

• alternative desk locations (for example, away from noise or foot traffic)

• adjusted lighting (desk lamps, dimming, avoiding flicker)

• changes to temperature or airflow where possible

• access changes such as ramps, handrails, or alternative routes

These adjustments remove physical strain or sensory overload that makes work harder than it needs to be.

2) Adjustments to working hours and patterns

Time is one of the most powerful adjustment levers, and one of the least expensive.

Examples include:

• flexible start and finish times

• reduced hours or compressed hours

• phased return to work after absence

• additional or longer breaks

• working from home or hybrid arrangements where the role allows

These adjustments are often essential for people managing fatigue, pain, medication effects, caring responsibilities, or fluctuating conditions.

3) Changes to how work is organised or prioritised

Many disadvantages come from how work is structured, not from the work itself.

Examples include:

• reallocating minor duties that create disproportionate difficulty

• adjusting workloads during flare-ups or recovery periods

• changing deadlines where timing rather than output is the issue

• allowing tasks to be completed in a different order

• reducing unnecessary multitasking

These changes are about making expectations realistic and sustainable.

4) Communication and management adjustments

This category is often overlooked, even though it is high impact and low cost.

Examples include:

• providing instructions in writing as well as verbally

• clearer priorities and fewer last-minute changes

• agendas shared before meetings and notes afterwards

• allowing questions after meetings rather than on the spot

• adjusting how feedback is given (more specific, less ambiguous)

For many people, clarity is the adjustment.

5) Technology and assistive tools

Technology-based adjustments can remove barriers quickly when matched to the right need.

Examples include:

• speech-to-text or text-to-speech software

• screen readers or magnification tools

• captioning for meetings and training

• task management or reminder tools

• noise-reduction tools or software

The key is not the tool itself, but whether it reduces the specific barrier the person is facing.

6) Adjustments to policies and processes

Sometimes the barrier is not the environment, but the rule.

Examples include:

• adjusting sickness absence triggers where absence is disability-related

• flexibility around performance processes during periods of ill health

• alternative ways to demonstrate competence

• modified return-to-work expectations

• disability-related leave for appointments or recovery

Policies designed for averages often need adjustment for real people.

7) Support-based adjustments

Some adjustments involve additional support rather than changes to the job itself.

Examples include:

• job coaching or mentoring

• buddy systems during onboarding or role changes

• additional supervision or check-ins during transitions

• external support funded through schemes such as Access to Work

Support-based adjustments are often temporary, but they can have lasting impact.

How to choose the right type of adjustment

The most effective adjustments start with the barrier, not the category.

A useful way to frame the conversation is:

• What part of the work is difficult?

• When does that difficulty show up?

• What would reduce or remove it?

One well-chosen adjustment is usually better than five vague ones.

Why this still breaks down in practice

Most organisations know these adjustment types exist. The problem is not awareness. It’s consistency.

Requests get handled differently by different managers. Decisions sit in inboxes. Adjustments are agreed but not reviewed. When someone changes role or manager, the conversation starts again.

That’s the gap Mosaic exists to close.

Mosaic provides a simple, auditable way to capture adjustments, agree actions, track what’s been delivered, and carry them forward over time. It turns good intentions into something reliable.

Next steps

• Manager guide:

• Workplace Passport explainer

What Are Reasonable Adjustments in the Workplace? (UK Guide)

Reasonable adjustments in the workplace are changes an employer makes to remove barriers that put a disabled person at a disadvantage at work. In the UK, employers have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.

This is not about “special treatment”. It’s about making work usable, so someone can do their job properly.

If you want the official definitions, start with:

• Government guidance on reasonable adjustments: GOV.UK: reasonable adjustments for disabled workers

• The legal duty itself: Equality Act 2010, Section 20

What does “reasonable adjustments” mean?

A reasonable adjustment is a practical change to:

• the workplace (physical or digital),

• the way work is organised, or

• the support provided,

so a disabled person is not unfairly disadvantaged compared with someone who is not disabled.

ACAS puts it simply, and it’s worth reading their guide for real-world examples: ACAS: reasonable adjustments at work.

Who do reasonable adjustments apply to?

Reasonable adjustments can apply to:

• job applicants (for interviews and assessments),

• employees and workers (day-to-day work, training, promotion),

• and sometimes contractors.

They also apply to a wide range of conditions, including many that are not obvious. Disability under the Equality Act includes physical or mental impairments with a substantial and long-term effect on day-to-day activities. Many people qualify without thinking of themselves as “disabled”.

When does an employer have to make reasonable adjustments?

The duty arises when a disabled person is placed at a substantial disadvantage because of:

• a policy or way of working (for example, rigid start times or absence triggers),

• a physical feature (for example, stairs or poor lighting),

• or the lack of an aid or support (for example, assistive software).

A common misunderstanding is that adjustments only apply once there’s a formal diagnosis. In reality, the key is the impact at work and whether a practical change can reduce the disadvantage.

Employers also need to handle health and disability information carefully, because it is treated as special category data under UK GDPR (which is one reason to focus on barriers and solutions, rather than oversharing medical detail).

Examples of reasonable adjustments in the workplace

Reasonable adjustments are often straightforward. Examples include:

Changes to working patterns

• Flexible start and finish times

• More frequent breaks (including short movement breaks)

• Phased return to work after absence

• Home or hybrid working where feasible (ACAS covers this in their adjustments guidance: ACAS: reasonable adjustments and flexible working context here: ACAS: requesting home or hybrid working)

Changes to the workspace

• Quieter desk location or access to a low-distraction space

• Adjusted lighting (dimming, desk lamp, avoiding flicker)

• Ergonomic equipment (chair, keyboard, sit-stand desk)

• Noise reduction tools (including permission to wear headphones)

Changes to how work is managed and communicated

• Written instructions as well as verbal

• Clear priorities and fewer last-minute changes

• Meeting agendas in advance and notes afterwards

• Adjusted performance processes during periods of ill health

Tools and support

• Speech-to-text or text-to-speech software

• Screen readers or magnification

• Captioning, interpreters, or communication support where needed

If you want employer-facing examples grounded in case-style scenarios, the EHRC has a solid set: EHRC: examples of reasonable adjustments in practice.

What counts as “reasonable”?

“Reasonable” is judged case by case. Employers are generally expected to consider:

• whether the adjustment would actually reduce the disadvantage

• whether it is practical

• the cost, balanced against the organisation’s resources

• genuine health and safety considerations

Size matters. A larger organisation is usually expected to do more than a small employer. Also, if one specific adjustment is not workable, the employer should still explore alternatives rather than stopping the conversation.

For deeper employer guidance, the Employment Statutory Code of Practice is the heavyweight reference: EHRC Employment Code of Practice (PDF).

How to request reasonable adjustments at work (simple approach)

You do not need legal language. Use plain English and keep it practical:

1. Describe the barrier (what’s hard, and when).

2. Describe the impact (what it stops you doing or makes harder).

3. Suggest 1–3 changes that would help.

4. Set a review point (for example, “Let’s try this for four weeks, then review.”)

If you’re a manager, a good next step is learning how to handle these requests confidently and consistently. This manager guide is a useful starting point: trymosaic.co/formanagers.

Why reasonable adjustments matter (for employers and employees)

Reasonable adjustments matter because they:

• reduce avoidable absence and burnout

• improve performance by removing friction

• improve retention (replacing people is expensive)

• reduce grievance and tribunal risk

• create more usable systems that often help everyone, not only disabled staff

They’re also one of the simplest ways to build trust. People ask earlier when they believe the process is fair and predictable.

• Are reasonable adjustments only for employees?

  No. They can apply during recruitment too, such as interview format, timing, location, and assessment methods.tion text goes here

• Do you need a diagnosis to get reasonable adjustments?

  Not always. The legal test focuses on the impact of an impairment and the disadvantage it creates at work.

• Can an employer refuse reasonable adjustments?

  An employer can refuse a specific adjustment if it is not reasonable, but they should explain why and discuss alternatives. A vague “no” with no options is where organisations get exposed.

• Is working from home a reasonable adjustment?

  It can be, depending on the role and feasibility. ACAS covers flexible working and home/hybrid requests here: ACAS: requesting home or hybrid working.

Who Is Entitled to Reasonable Adjustments at Work?

In the UK, entitlement to reasonable adjustments is clearer than many people assume. What causes confusion is not the law, but persistent myths about diagnosis, labels, and who is seen as “disabled enough”.

In Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland), the duty comes from the Equality Act 2010. Employers must make reasonable adjustments when a disabled person is placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with others, and that disadvantage comes from workplace rules, the physical environment, or missing support or equipment.

Northern Ireland has different legislation (the Disability Discrimination Act 1995), so the details are not identical.

The short answer: who qualifies?

Someone is generally entitled to reasonable adjustments at work if:

1. They meet the Equality Act definition of disability (or are likely to), and

2. They are at a substantial disadvantage at work because of a workplace practice, a physical feature, or lack of an aid or service.

The duty can apply to more people than “employees” too. The Equality Act duty covers employees and workers, and can also extend to job applicants, contractors, and self-employed individuals in relevant work arrangements.

What counts as a disability under the Equality Act 2010?

The Equality Act definition is broad. A disability is a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term negative effect on someone’s ability to do normal day-to-day activities.

Two key bits matter:

• “Substantial” means more than minor or trivial.

• “Long-term” usually means it has lasted (or is likely to last) 12 months or more, or is likely to recur.

This is why entitlement often includes people with fluctuating or non-visible conditions. And it’s why many people are entitled even if they would never personally use the word “disabled”.

Do you need a formal diagnosis to be entitled?

Not always, and treating diagnosis as a gatekeeping requirement is one of the most common mistakes.

The EHRC’s statutory Employment Code makes the principle very clear: what matters is the effect of the impairment, not whether someone can prove a medically diagnosed cause. P#

In real workplaces, this often means you can trial an adjustment to see if it reduces the disadvantage, without turning the request into a paperwork marathon.

What if you haven’t disclosed your disability?

This is the awkward bit. You’re not legally forced to disclose, but the duty to make reasonable adjustments usually only arises once an employer knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that someone is disabled.

So culture matters. If people don’t feel safe disclosing, the organisation may never “see” the need, and nothing changes. That dynamic is one reason adjustments remain patchy in practice.

Which situations trigger the duty to make reasonable adjustments?

In simple terms: the duty is triggered when a disabled person is put at a substantial disadvantage by one of these:

1) A rule, policy, or “way we do things”

The legal phrase is “provision, criterion or practice” (often shortened to PCP).
Examples: rigid start times, inflexible break policies, informal performance management, absence triggers.

2) A physical feature of the workplace

Examples: stairs, lighting, noise levels, desk setup, access to quiet space.

3) Missing equipment, support, or services

The law refers to an “auxiliary aid or service”.
Examples: assistive software, captioning, specialist equipment, support worker arrangements.

Who is entitled during recruitment?

Applicants can be entitled too. The duty covers recruitment and selection processes, not just life after someone starts the job.

Common recruitment adjustments include:

• alternative interview formats

• extra time for assessments

• questions in advance

• a different way to demonstrate competence (where appropriate)

Who is entitled once employed?

Employees and workers can be entitled at any stage: onboarding, training, performance conversations, promotions, restructures, and return-to-work.

A useful mental model is this: adjustments are not a one-off event. People’s roles change, health changes, teams change, offices change. A good process expects reviews.

Common myths that block adjustments

“You’re not disabled enough”

This attitude shows up a lot in lived experience and is a classic route into legal risk. The law does not require someone to look a certain way, or to have the “right kind” of condition.

“Bring me proof first”

Over-reliance on medical evidence slows down support and misses the point. The statutory guidance is impact-first, not diagnosis-first.

“We don’t do adjustments here”

If the disadvantage exists and the adjustment is reasonable, “company policy” is often the very thing that needs adjusting.

Practical next steps (employee and manager)

If you’re an employee: focus your request on the barrier at work and the change that would remove it. Keep it specific and testable.

If you’re a manager or HR lead: your biggest risk is not a malicious refusal. It’s delay, vagueness, and forgetting what was agreed. Systems beat good intentions.

Why Are Workplace Adjustments Important? (Benefits for All)

If you’re asking why are reasonable adjustments important, the honest answer is: they are one of the simplest ways to make work actually work.

Workplaces are full of hidden assumptions about how people think, communicate, concentrate, move, and stay well. When those assumptions collide with disability, people end up working harder just to reach the starting line. Reasonable adjustments remove that friction.

They also happen to be a legal duty in Great Britain under the Equality Act 2010. If you want the official wording, you can read the duty here:

• Equality Act 2010, Section 20

But the real reason adjustments matter is not legal. It’s practical. They keep people in work, help people do their best work, and reduce needless stress for everyone involved.

What “workplace adjustments” actually do

Workplace adjustments (also called reasonable adjustments) are changes to the way work is done, the environment, or the support provided, so a disabled person is not disadvantaged at work.

This can include:

• changes to hours or location (flexible or hybrid working)

• changes to the workspace (noise, lighting, equipment)

• changes to communication and management (clearer instructions, meeting formats)

• tools and support (assistive tech, captions, software)

ACAS has a clear overview and examples here:

• ACAS: Reasonable adjustments at work

Why reasonable adjustments are important for employees

1) They reduce avoidable stress and burnout

When someone is battling the job and the workplace setup at the same time, the job usually loses. Adjustments reduce the background strain that drains energy and attention.

2) They improve performance, not by magic, but by removing barriers

A lot of “performance issues” are access issues in disguise. If someone can’t focus because the environment is chaotic, or misses instructions because everything is verbal and rushed, that is not a character flaw. It’s a systems problem.

3) They create psychological safety

People are more likely to speak up early, ask for help, and stay engaged when the workplace shows it can adapt. That matters for wellbeing, but also for trust.

4) They support dignity

This is the bit many organisations miss. Adjustments are not a favour. They are a way of making work fair and respectful, especially for people with non-visible or fluctuating conditions.

Why reasonable adjustments are important for employers

1) You keep good people

Replacing trained staff is expensive. It is also slow. Adjustments are often far cheaper than recruitment churn, lost knowledge, and months of ramp-up time.

2) You reduce absence and disruption

When barriers are left in place, problems escalate. People take more sick leave, or they reach breaking point. Timely adjustments are preventative maintenance for your workforce.

3) You reduce legal and HR risk

Failing to make reasonable adjustments can amount to disability discrimination. Even when you ultimately agree an adjustment, delays and messy processes increase risk, because they create gaps, misunderstandings, and inconsistent decisions.

If you’re managing requests, ACAS guidance is a sensible baseline:

• ACAS: Reasonable adjustments

4) You improve productivity in a way that scales

A good adjustments process creates clarity:

• what was requested

• what was agreed

• what is in place

• what needs review

That reduces managerial “guesswork”, cuts admin, and stops problems getting stuck in email threads.

If you want a manager-facing practical guide, link your internal resource here:

• trymosaic.co/formanagers

“Benefits for all”: why adjustments help more than disabled employees

A funny thing happens when you design work to be usable for people with higher barriers. It becomes better for everyone.

Examples:

• Clearer written instructions help new starters and busy teams, not only disabled staff.

• Predictable meeting agendas help anyone who is juggling multiple priorities.

• Flexible working patterns help parents, carers, and people dealing with short-term illness or injury.

• Quiet zones help people doing deep work, full stop.

Reasonable adjustments are targeted, but the habits they create often lift the whole workplace.

Low-cost workplace adjustments that make a big difference

Many high-impact adjustments are simple:

• flexibility around start times

• breaks and pacing

• written follow-ups after meetings

• clearer prioritisation and fewer last-minute changes

• permission to use headphones

• moving a desk away from a high-traffic area

• turning on captions by default

The “reasonable” part is often less about money and more about willingness to think creatively.

How to make adjustments work in practice

Good intentions do not implement adjustments. Systems do.

A solid process usually includes:

• a clear route for requesting adjustments

• a prompt response timeframe

• a short discussion focused on barriers and solutions

• agreed actions with an owner and a date

• a written record

• a review point (because needs and roles change)

• Most organisations fall down in one predictable place: the record. Decisions get scattered across emails, Teams chats, spreadsheets, and half-remembered conversations. Then someone changes manager, moves team, switches office days, or has a flare-up and suddenly you’re back to square one.

  That’s where TryMosaic comes in.

  Mosaic gives you a simple, auditable workflow for workplace adjustments: capture what’s needed, agree actions, track delivery, and keep a single source of truth that survives role changes and manager turnover. It’s built to keep the conversation focused on practical barriers and solutions, not endless re-explaining or document chasing.

  If you want the practical next step, start here:

  What is a workplace passport

When Must Employers Provide Reasonable Adjustments?

This question usually comes up when something has already gone wrong. Someone is struggling, an issue has been raised, or a request has landed on a manager’s desk. At that point, the key issue is whether the employer has a duty to act.

The simplest way to think about it is this: employers must provide reasonable adjustments when a disabled person is put at a substantial disadvantage at work and the employer knows (or should reasonably know) disability is involved.

That can happen at recruitment. It can happen after disclosure. It can also happen later, when problems show up and it becomes obvious that barriers at work are part of the story.

The main triggers for providing reasonable adjustments

Employers should consider reasonable adjustments when any of the following are true:

1) During recruitment and interviews

Adjustments are not just for people who already work for you. They can apply at any stage of hiring, including:

• application forms and online portals

• interview format and location

• assessments, tests, and tasks

• communication support needs

If a candidate needs a change to take part fairly, that is a reasonable adjustments moment.

2) When someone discloses a disability or health condition

If an employee tells you they are disabled, or shares a long-term condition that affects their work, that is a clear trigger to discuss barriers and possible adjustments.

A key detail: the conversation should focus on what gets in the way at work and what would reduce that disadvantage. It does not need to become a medical interrogation.

3) When an employee is struggling, even if they do not use the words “reasonable adjustments”

People rarely speak in legal language. They say things like:

• “I’m finding the open plan really hard”

• “I’m exhausted by the end of the day”

• “I can’t concentrate when instructions change constantly”

• “I’m fine at the work, but I’m falling behind on the admin”

If a manager can reasonably connect the dots between difficulty at work and a disability-related barrier, that should trigger a supportive adjustments discussion.

4) When sickness absence or return-to-work issues appear disability-related

Absence patterns can be a warning light. If someone’s absence, phased return, or delayed recovery relates to disability, employers may need to adjust:

• attendance triggers

• performance expectations during recovery

• hours, duties, or location temporarily or permanently

This is a common place where organisations drift into risk, because they treat disability-related absence as “just sickness” and follow the usual process without pausing to consider adjustments.

5) When a change at work creates new barriers

Even if adjustments were agreed in the past, the duty can reappear when something changes, such as:

• a new manager

• a new role or responsibilities

• a new office setup

• a new tool or system

• a shift to more in-person days

• a restructure or team move

Adjustments are not a one-off event. They need review because work changes.

What counts as a “reasonable” adjustment?

Reasonable does not mean “whatever is easiest for the employer”. It is a judgement based on what would reduce the disadvantage and whether it is practical in context.

Employers usually need to consider:

• whether the change would actually help

• how practical it is to implement

• cost and resources (including the size of the organisation)

• any genuine health and safety issues

If one specific request is not workable, the employer should still look for alternatives. A flat “no” with no options is where things go wrong.

Timing matters: delays can become the problem

One of the biggest practical failures is not outright refusal. It’s slow action.

If an adjustment is agreed but not implemented, the disadvantage continues. That can quickly become the real issue, especially when the change is simple and clearly helpful.

A sensible approach is to agree:

• what will be done

• who will do it

• by when

• how you will check whether it worked

A simple checklist for employers

Employers should ask:

• Do we have reason to believe disability may be involved?

• Is this person disadvantaged by how work is done, the workspace, or missing support?

• Have we responded promptly and clearly?

• Have we agreed actions with owners and dates?

• Have we written it down and set a review point?

If you can answer “yes” to the process questions, you are already ahead of most workplaces.

Making this work in practice

Good intentions do not implement adjustments. Systems do.

A solid process usually includes:

• a clear route for requesting adjustments

• a prompt response timeframe

• a short discussion focused on barriers and solutions

• agreed actions with an owner and a date

• a written record

• a review point (because needs and roles change)

Most organisations fall down in one predictable place: the record. Decisions end up spread across emails, chats, documents, and memory. Then someone changes manager or role, and the whole thing resets.

That is exactly the problem Workplace Passports and a proper adjustments workflow are meant to solve.

Next steps

• Manager guide:

• Workplace Passport explainer: