When “No” Is Reasonable: A Practical Guide to Denying a Adjustments

The vast majority of reasonable adjustments should be agreed. They cost little, improve performance and morale, and reduce legal risk. ACAS is blunt about this: many adjustments cost nothing and simply require a change to how work is organised.

Still, there are moments when an employer may lawfully refuse an adjustment. These situations are narrow and tightly defined in UK law. They rely on evidence, not opinion or team preference. A refusal that isn’t backed by demonstrable reasoning will expose the organisation to discrimination risk under the Equality Act 2010.

This guide explains when a refusal can be lawful, what evidence employers need, and how managers and employees should handle these conversations. It includes practical examples, because theory alone is not enough.

What makes an adjustment “reasonable”?

Reasonableness is an objective legal test. An employer can decide an adjustment is “not reasonable”, but that judgement has no legal force unless it would stand up in tribunal. This is why decisions must be evidence based, not preference based.

The Equality Act sets the framework. An adjustment is reasonable when it effectively reduces a substantial disadvantage and is practical given the employer’s resources. ACAS and the CIPD emphasise that reasonableness is a balancing act, not an excuse to say no.

Factors include:

• whether the adjustment removes or reduces the disadvantage
• practicality and operational impact
• cost relative to the employer’s size and resources
• the availability of Access to Work funding
• whether a safer or more effective alternative exists

Employers are not required to agree to an adjustment exactly as requested if another option solves the same problem.

Lawful reasons for refusing an adjustment

There are only a few defensible grounds for saying no. They must be evidenced, not asserted.

1. The adjustment does not reduce the disadvantage

If the proposed change does not address the actual barrier, or if a different adjustment is more effective, employers can refuse the original request and offer an alternative.

2. The adjustment creates a specific safety risk

Health and safety can justify refusal, but only where the risk is real, evidenced and cannot be mitigated with another option.

3. The adjustment removes an essential job requirement

ACAS makes this clear. Employers do not have to change the fundamental nature of a job. They must adapt duties, but not eliminate core tasks entirely.

4. The cost is genuinely disproportionate

Cost alone will not do. The employer must show the cost is excessive in relation to its resources. Small organisations have more leeway here than large ones. Access to Work funding should always be considered first.

5. The request breaches legal or regulatory obligations

This is rare, but relevant in sectors where certain actions are simply not permitted.

6. An equally effective alternative exists

Employers can lawfully offer a different adjustment that solves the same problem.

Reasons that are not lawful

Managers often cite reasons that feel intuitive but won’t hold up in tribunal.

Not lawful:

• “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 need it.”

ACAS warns explicitly against using assumptions, feelings or cultural discomfort as grounds for refusal.

Practical examples: when a request is reasonable, debatable or lawfully refused

To make this real, here are grounded examples drawn from familiar workplace situations.

Noise-cancelling headphones

Clear yes
A software developer in an open-plan office struggles with noise. A £60 pair of headphones solves the issue without disruption.
Outcome: Approve.

Discuss and adapt
A receptionist asks for full noise-cancelling headphones but needs to hear visitors and phones.
Possible adaptations: noise-dampening headphones, acoustic screens, split duties.
Outcome: Adjust, not deny.

Lawful deny
A warehouse operative requests headphones that would block safety alarms.
Outcome: Deny on safety grounds. Offer alternatives such as ear defenders with alarm pass-through or quieter tasks where possible.

Permanent home working

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

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

Lawful deny
A lab technician needs to work with physical samples.
Outcome: Deny, because the job is inherently on-site.

Removing essential duties

Clear yes
Rebalancing small admin tasks across a team where it has no material operational impact.
Outcome: Approve.

Discuss and adapt
A customer service rep asks to avoid calls entirely. Phone work is part of the job but not the whole job.
Outcome: Reduce call load and introduce scripts or asynchronous channels.

Lawful deny
A driver asks to remove all driving due to anxiety.
Outcome: Deny, because this removes the core of the role.

Specialist equipment

Clear yes
Standard ergonomic equipment costing under £300.
Outcome: Approve.

Discuss and adapt
A £10,000 piece of equipment for a small charity.
Outcome: Consider Access to Work before refusing.

Lawful deny
Highly specialised equipment irrelevant to the role or prohibited for regulatory reasons.
Outcome: Deny, with alternatives offered where possible.

Adjusted hours

Clear yes
Later start to avoid sensory overload, with hours made up later.
Outcome: Approve.

Discuss and adapt
A retail worker requests to start late every day during peak trading hours.
Outcome: Explore shift rotation or different duties.

Lawful deny
A security guard requests no early shifts, leaving a gap in mandatory cover.
Outcome: Deny due to safety and service continuity.

What makes a refusal “defensible”?

A refusal must show:

• the disadvantage was properly identified
• the adjustment was genuinely considered
• evidence supports the decision
• alternatives were explored
• the aim remained to reduce the disadvantage
• the reasoning would appear fair to a neutral observer
• the process is documented

A refusal without documentation is weak by default.

Handling the conversation

For managers

Be transparent. Keep explanations factual. Avoid moralising about “fairness.” Offer alternatives. Document the discussion.

CMI guidance stresses that inclusive leadership is not about avoiding difficult conversations but handling them with clarity and respect.

For employees

Ask for the reasoning in writing- Trymosaic helps with this. Request to explore alternatives. Provide any relevant medical or occupational health evidence. Escalate through HR only if the process feels unfair.

The shared objective: reduce the disadvantage

A refusal is lawful only when it leads towards a better alternative. The Equality Act duty is not about granting the exact adjustment requested. It is about ensuring the employee is not left at a substantial disadvantage.

Handled well, these conversations improve trust, performance, and psychological safety. Handled poorly, they undermine all three.

TryMosaic exists to make this process structured, consistent and recorded, so nobody is guessing and nobody is exposed.

Further reading and references

Equality Act 2010 – Reasonable Adjustments
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20

EHRC: Reasonable Adjustments Guidance
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/reasonable-adjustments-disabled-people

ACAS: Reasonable Adjustments
https://www.acas.org.uk/reasonable-adjustments

ACAS: Disability at Work
https://www.acas.org.uk/disability-at-work

Access to Work (DWP)
https://www.gov.uk/access-to-work

Employment Tribunal Decisions
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions