The duty to make 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. 



Effectively, 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 support offered to a disabled worker is not also available to non-disabled colleagues is irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether it is “reasonable”.



The duty is owed to the individual disabled worker. This means that the appropriateness of an adjustment depends on the needs of that individual. It is not an abstract duty. The duty is not owed until a disabled worker presents him or herself, by applying for a job.



The duty is not owed to anyone except the disabled person. For example, it is not owed to their carer or parent (Hainsworth v Ministry of Defence [2014] IRLR 728 CA). 



Obvious examples of a PCP include sickness absence and redundancy or discipline and grievance policies. However, the concept of a PCP is very wide and could even include the decision to dismiss (Hibbert v The Home Office [2013] UKEAT 0138/13/2410). In Carreras v United First Partners Research [2016] UKEAT/0266/15/0704, an employer’s expectation that Carreras would regularly work beyond his contract hours was a PCP triggering the duty, even though Carreras was not under any legal obligation to do so.



“Steps” also has a very wide meaning, and can include any modification at all 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 under a sickness absence procedure, for example by allowing for longer periods of absence by disabled workers before triggering sanctions under the procedure;


• modifying redundancy selection procedures; and



• modifying redeployment procedures. 



In Government Legal Service v Brookes [2017] UKEAT/0302/16/RN the EAT ruled that the GLS engaged in disability discrimination by refusing to modify a computerised multiple choice test for a job applicant with Aspergers Syndrome. 


Whether or not an adjustment is reasonable will depend on the particular circumstances of each disabled individual. 



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