Reasonable Adjustments CASES

In English law, reasonable adjustments are changes that employers, service providers, education providers and others must make to avoid putting disabled people at a substantial disadvantage. The duty arises under the Equality Act 2010 and aims to remove practical barriers so disabled people can access work, services, education and premises on an equal footing. Costs cannot be passed to the disabled person.

Definition and principles

The duty is engaged where a disabled person is placed at a substantial disadvantage (more than minor or trivial) compared with non-disabled people. It requires taking reasonable steps to avoid that disadvantage. The Act groups adjustments into three broad categories: (i) changing a provision, criterion or practice (PCP); (ii) removing or altering a physical feature; and (iii) providing an auxiliary aid or service (for example, a British Sign Language interpreter or assistive software). What is “reasonable” is judged objectively and contextually.

Who owes the duty?

Employers. An individualised duty owed to an identified employee or applicant. Knowledge matters: the employer must know, or could reasonably be expected to know, of the disability and the disadvantage.

Service providers, public functions, associations and education providers. An anticipatory duty: they must think in advance about barriers likely to affect disabled people in general, not wait for a particular individual to complain. The duty is continuing and should be reviewed as circumstances change.

Reasonableness factors

Courts and tribunals consider effectiveness (will it remove or reduce the disadvantage?), practicability and disruption, cost and the organisation’s resources, the availability of financial or practical support, the nature and frequency of the disadvantage, and whether less intrusive alternatives exist. A cheaper step is not automatically preferable if it is materially less effective.

Common examples

  • PCPs: adjusting rigid hours, allowing more breaks, modifying absence triggers, flexible recruitment processes (extra time, alternative formats, remote interview options).
  • Physical features: ramps, contrasting handrails, re-positioned shelving, tactile signage, relocating activities to accessible rooms.
  • Auxiliary aids/services: screen-reader software, speech-to-text, BSL interpretation, note-takers, ergonomic equipment, accessible customer-service channels.
  • Education: alternative assessment methods, lecture capture, accessible learning materials, quiet rooms, tailored timetabling.

Process and good practice

Identify the barrier with the individual where the duty is individualised (employment); consult and document options; trial and review adjustments; protect confidentiality; train managers and frontline staff. For anticipatory duties, audit the customer journey or student lifecycle and publish accessibility information.

Legal implications

  • Breach. Failure to make reasonable adjustments is a standalone form of unlawful disability discrimination. Justification is not a defence to the failure itself, though knowledge and reasonableness are central.
  • Remedies. Compensation (including injury to feelings), declarations and recommendations. Employment claims go to the Employment Tribunal (strict time limits and Early Conciliation apply); services and education claims generally go to the County Court (different limits apply).
  • No cost-shifting to the individual. The duty is on the duty-bearer; charging the disabled person for the adjustment is unlawful.

Relationship to neighbouring concepts

Discrimination arising from disability (s.15) and indirect discrimination. These may be pleaded alongside a failure to adjust. Positive action. Voluntary measures to reduce disadvantage are separate from the mandatory duty to adjust. Health and safety. Legitimate safety concerns must be evidence-based; they do not justify inaction where safe, reasonable adjustments exist.

Practical importance

For organisations, proactive audits and clear policies reduce litigation risk and improve inclusion. For advisers and students, frame the analysis around the specific barrier, the realistic menu of steps, and why the proposed adjustment is (or is not) reasonable in context, supported by evidence on effectiveness, practicality and cost.

See also: Equality Act 2010; Disability discrimination; Provision, criterion or practice (PCP); Auxiliary aids; Education duties; Public sector equality duty; Health and safety; Time limits and forums.