Guest blog by Hannah Strawbridge
If you asked most employers whether they understand their duty to make reasonable adjustments, most would say yes. But in my experience advising on tribunal claims and negotiating exits, the issue is rarely a lack of awareness. It is how that duty is applied in real situations, with real people. That is something strongly echoed in the SOM guide on reasonable adjustments, which highlights the continued gap between policy and practice.
Under the Equality Act 2010, employers must take reasonable steps to remove disadvantages faced by disabled employees. That duty is ongoing and highly fact specific. It requires more than simply reacting when something goes wrong - it requires active, informed decision-making. Case law reinforces just how wide and practical that duty is.
In Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] EWCA Civ 1265, the Court of Appeal confirmed that absence management policies can amount to a provision, criterion, or practice (PCP). In practice, that means employers may need to adjust trigger points or apply discretion, even where policies are applied consistently across the workforce.
More recently, in AECOM Ltd v Mallon [2023] EAT 38, the Employment Appeal Tribunal made it clear that employers must think flexibly about removing disadvantage. In that case, a failure to adjust a recruitment process for a candidate with dyspraxia led to a finding of discrimination. The issue was not intention, but a failure to carefully consider alternatives.
These principles come up repeatedly in the cases I deal with.
One recent matter involved an employee with anxiety whose performance had started to dip. The employer moved quickly into a capability process, supported by an occupational health report identifying underlying health issues. Adjustments were suggested - reduced targets and additional support - but they were introduced alongside formal warnings.
From a legal perspective, steps had been taken. But from the employee’s perspective, the outcome felt inevitable. The adjustments came too late to rebuild trust, and the matter resolved through a settlement agreement. With earlier intervention, it is likely the situation could have been stabilised.
In another case, an employee with a long-term condition triggered absence management procedures. The policy had been applied consistently, but no thought had been given to whether the trigger points themselves should be adjusted. By the time advice was sought, dismissal had already taken place. The claim that followed focused squarely on the failure to adjust the policy, rather than the dismissal itself. These situations are not unusual. The most common issues I see are:
- Adjustments being considered only after formal processes have begun
- Over-reliance on occupational health reports as a definitive answer
- Managers lacking confidence to have open conversations about health
- A focus on following process, rather than addressing disadvantage
What tribunals consistently look for is not perfection, but evidence of thought. What options were considered? Was the employee involved? Were alternatives explored and documented?
From a practical perspective, the organisations that get this right tend to act early before issues escalate. They involve employees in open and constructive discussions. They document their reasoning, not just their decisions. And they recognise that adjustments are not static - they need to be reviewed over time.
For occupational health professionals, HR teams and legal advisers, the most effective approach is a genuinely collaborative one. Occupational health provides insight into the individual’s condition. HR understands the operational context. Legal advisers provide the framework. When those perspectives are aligned, outcomes are far more effective.
Case law provides the parameters. But it is day-to-day management that determines whether employers meet their obligations in reality. Managed well, reasonable adjustments prevent disputes and support individuals to remain in work. Managed poorly, they remain one of the most common routes into litigation that I see in practice.
One of the clearest themes from both case law and real-life experience is that managers want to do the right thing, but often lack the confidence and practical skills to navigate these situations.
Hannah Strawbridge is Head of Legal/Employment Solicitor at Inspire Legal. If you would like to find out more or are interested in a without cost initial consultation, email hannah@inspirelegalgroup.co.uk