What works? Reasonable adjustments for disabled colleagues

Rising Stakes in Disability Inclusion

Employers in the UK are navigating a rapidly evolving landscape for reasonable adjustments—changes to workplaces, practices, or policies required under the Equality Act 2010 to prevent disabled employees from being substantially disadvantaged. The duty is longstanding, but recent developments have intensified scrutiny and expectations.

The Employment Rights Act 2025, which received Royal Assent in late 2025, introduces broader worker protections and reforms to flexible working that intersect with disability support, including a 'reasonableness' test for requests. Meanwhile, the government is advancing an Equality (Race and Disability) Bill, with a draft expected in 2026 following consultations; this could mandate disability pay gap reporting for employers with 250+ staff, mirroring gender pay gap rules, and extend equal pay protections to disabled workers.

These changes arrive against a backdrop of stubbornly high economic inactivity among disabled people. Figures show an increase of nearly one million economically inactive disabled individuals between 2019 and mid-2025, reaching around 4 million, driven partly by inaccessible workplaces and repeated barriers to adjustments. Reports highlight disabled workers often facing avoidable exclusion, stalled careers, and the need to repeatedly self-advocate for support.

The government overhauled the Disability Confident scheme in January 2026 to raise standards, shortening entry-level durations and pushing progression to encourage meaningful action over box-ticking. Initiatives like the Keep Britain Working review emphasise timely adjustments to prevent health-related exits from work, with vanguards testing new support models.

Non-obvious tensions persist: what is 'reasonable' hinges on factors like cost, business size, and practicality, leading to litigation. Tribunal decisions in 2025-2026 clarified limits—such as no obligation to redeploy into unsuitable roles or provide indefinite vague training—while others criticised failures to implement occupational health advice, like awareness training for neurodiverse colleagues. Small adjustments often cost little, yet larger ones strain resources, creating trade-offs between inclusion and operational feasibility. Inaction exposes employers to tribunal claims, fines, and reputational risks amid growing public and regulatory focus on inclusion.