Reasonable adjustments 




A key concept of the EA 10 is the duty to make reasonable adjustments (section 20, EA 10). This is a positive statutory duty owed by the employer to a disabled person to take “reasonable steps” to alleviate any substantial disadvantage to that person, compared to non-disabled workers, as a result of any provision, criterion or practice (PCP) at work. “Substantial” disadvantage simply means “more than minor or trivial” (section 212(1), EA 10).


The duty requires the employer to engage in reasonable positive discrimination in favour of the disabled worker to remove barriers that make it harder to enter the workplace and contribute productively. The fact that the same support is not offered to non-disabled colleagues is irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether it is “reasonable”.




It is a practical rather than an abstract duty, owed to the disabled worker and to nobody else. (For example, it is not owed to the carer or parent of a disabled person (Hainsworth v Ministry of Defence [2014] IRLR 728 CA)). It is not owed until a disabled worker presents him or herself, by applying for a job. The appropriateness of any adjustment will depend on the particular needs of the individual. 




Obvious examples of PCPs conducive to reasonable adjustment include sickness absence and redundancy or discipline and grievance policies. However, the concept of a PCP is very wide and can even include the decision to dismiss (Hibbert v The Home Office [2013] UKEAT 0138/13/2410). 


Tribunals must take a liberal, rather than a restrictive approach to what amounts to a PCP, reflecting the protective purpose of the legislation. In Carreras v United First Partners Research [2018] EWCA Civ.323, an expectation or assumption by the employer that an employee would regularly work beyond his contract hours, so that he felt pressured to work late even though it disadvantaged his health was a PCP triggering the duty. It was enough that Carreras felt obliged to work late. It did not matter that there was no contractual obligation to do this, or that he was not being coerced by the employer into working the extra hours.




“Steps” has a very wide meaning and can include any modification whatsoever to the PCP that could remove a disadvantage (Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] EWCA Civ 1265). The only relevant question is whether the step is “reasonable”. Examples of common adjustments include:



• special interview arrangements;




• modifying recruitment selection procedures, for example, allowing more time to complete tests or adjusting testing methods; 




• reallocating duties;




• altering hours, or offering reduced hours;




• permitting working from home; 




• a phased return after sickness absence; 




• transferring a newly disabled person (or a person whose disability has worsened) into a more suitable existing vacancy;




• extra training;




• time off for medical treatment;




• relaxing workplace rules, for example, allowing extra breaks or time away from the computer; 




• modifying sickness absence trigger points, for example allowing for longer periods of absence by disabled workers before triggering a formal intervention;
and


• modifying redundancy selection or redeployment procedures (see Chapter 11). 




There is information about reasonable adjustments in the context of sickness absence and dismissal in Chapter 8.