Reasonable Adjustments
in the Workplace
A practical session for HR caseworkers across MOD and DBS
A few things before you start
Work through each section in sequence. Some pages ask what you currently think. Others ask you to apply the frameworks to situations you know. Keep what you write — the toolkit at the end is designed to be useful after today, when a real case comes up.
No names needed. When pages ask about real colleagues or cases, write enough to be useful to yourself. You do not need to identify anyone.
Nine Moments of Reflection
Moments 1–4: about yourself and others
Someone you know who is always late for everything. Is it attitude — or something else?
Big news overnight, still had to show up. How did that affect your capacity?
Arrived somewhere new and immediately felt off. Could you feel it affecting how you managed yourself?
Really upset or angry. Did one of your senses feel more heightened, or were you less aware of others?
Moments 5–9: communication and outcomes
A message you tried to communicate fell flat. What did you do differently afterwards?
You misunderstood a message someone was trying to get across. Where was the gap?
Your knowledge of a topic was greater than the person you were communicating with. What barriers did that create?
Someone's delivery style made communication harder. What was it about that style?
The result went the opposite way despite your best efforts. What did you take from it?
True or False
-
1
An employer must only consider reasonable adjustments once an employee has a formal medical diagnosis.
The duty is triggered by knowledge of disability, not a formal diagnosis. -
2
Reasonable adjustments are intended to remove disadvantage, not to give someone an unfair advantage.
Adjustments level the playing field. They are not preferential treatment. -
3
Employers are required to agree to any adjustment requested by an employee if it relates to their disability.
The duty is to consider and implement what is reasonable — not to agree every request. -
4
Cost alone is enough to justify refusing a reasonable adjustment.
Cost is a factor in reasonableness, but cost alone is not a complete justification. -
5
A workplace policy or standard process can still be discriminatory if it puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage.
PCPs applied equally can still be discriminatory if they create substantial disadvantage. -
6
The duty to make reasonable adjustments is ongoing and should be reviewed if circumstances change.
The duty to adjust is anticipatory, ongoing and must be reviewed as circumstances change. -
7
Reasonable adjustments only apply to employees, not job applicants or former employees.
The duty covers job applicants, employees and (in some circumstances) former employees. -
8
If an employer offers a different adjustment than the one requested, this can still meet their legal duty.
An employer can offer a different adjustment, as long as it removes the disadvantage.
The legal landscape
The duty in plain terms
Under s.20, employers must make reasonable adjustments where a PCP, physical feature or absence of auxiliary aid puts a disabled person at substantial disadvantage. The duty is to remove the disadvantage — not treat everyone the same.
The three duties
Provision, Criterion or Practice
Any rule, policy, requirement or practice — written or unwritten — that puts a disabled person at substantial disadvantage.
Physical Feature
A physical feature of the workplace that creates a barrier — must be removed, altered or worked around.
Auxiliary Aid
Where the absence of an aid or service creates disadvantage, the employer must provide it.
The State of Neurodiversity at Work
UK evidence 2024–2026. The data is consistent: tribunal claims are rising, manager confidence is low, and neurodivergent people are still masking, not disclosing, and facing discrimination.
Workforce reality
The training gap
Legal and policy context
All conditions together
What goes wrong — and what every case has in common
ADHD + anxiety + disciplinary process
The tribunal found that the employer failed to consider the claimant's ADHD and anxiety before progressing a disciplinary process. Evidence of the disability did not reach the decision-maker.
Physical condition — all three s.20 duties in one case
A rare case in which all three s.20 duties — PCP, physical feature, and auxiliary aid — were engaged simultaneously. The tribunal found failure across all three, and that hybrid working was an available and proportionate adjustment.
Autism + start time PCP — a 45-minute tribunal
The claimant's autism meant a fixed 8am start was a substantial disadvantage. The employer asserted operational need without evidencing it. The tribunal found for the claimant in 45 minutes.
Depression, anxiety and joint pain — the four-day week
The claimant requested a four-day week as an adjustment for a combination of mental health and physical conditions. The employer refused without genuine consideration. The tribunal found the refusal indefensible.
Further Case Law — Arising in Consequence and Time Limits
Two further cases central to this session. Grosset is the anchor principle for every late-stage disclosure a caseworker will encounter.
Cystic fibrosis — conduct — arising in consequence
A teacher with cystic fibrosis was dismissed for gross misconduct after showing inappropriate content to pupils. The school knew about his condition but did not consider whether the impaired judgement arose from it. The Court of Appeal confirmed: employers do not need to know the link between disability and conduct at the time. The question is whether the conduct arose in consequence of the disability — and whether that was considered before the decision was made.
ADHD · Dyslexia — the time-bar irony
In both cases, substantively strong claims were dismissed as time-barred. In Drewniaczyk, ADHD and dyslexia in a documentation-heavy policing environment; in de Vere, ADHD diagnosed after employment ended. The irony: ADHD itself — through difficulty initiating action, poor urgency and time blindness — can directly cause the delay in bringing the claim.
Late-Stage Disclosure — The Legal Test
When a disability or health condition is raised partway through a grievance, disciplinary or appeal — whether neurodivergent, physical, mental health or MSK — the first question is not “why now?” It is whether the disability duty was already engaged.
- Has something relevant been disclosed? A formal diagnosis is not required. Knowledge or constructive knowledge of difficulties consistent with a condition is enough.
- Pause — check it has reached the decision-maker. Has this information actually reached the person making the decision? Document that it has — or that it hasn't — and why.
- Ask and document: arising in consequence? Could the conduct have arisen in consequence of this condition? Record the answer either way, with reasoning.
- Consider proportionality and alternatives. Is the proposed outcome proportionate? What less severe alternative exists: explicit guidance, a supported conversation, a documented agreement?
- If escalation proceeds, show your working. The written rationale must show all of the above was considered, not just that a policy was applied.
Further Cases — High-Value Claims
These cases illustrate the cost of getting it wrong. Note what each one teaches about your own processes.
ADHD + PTSD — dismissal on day one of sick leave
Cancer — 36 years' service — behaviour changed by medication
Dyslexia + conduct in a training session
The six common failures across all cases
- Waiting for a diagnosis before acting.
- Asserting operational need without evidencing it.
- No documentation of genuine consideration.
- Withdrawing adjustments without review.
- Treating conduct and disability as separate when they were not.
- Not taking informal disclosure seriously.
Civilian and Service Communication: Recognising the Difference
DBS caseworkers move between two communication cultures every day. Neither is wrong. Assuming one is the baseline causes real friction — especially when the person you are supporting is neurodivergent.
| Service communication norms | Civilian workplace norms |
|---|---|
| Direct, succinct, removes ambiguity. Clear chains of command. Instruction is explicit and expected to be followed. Stoicism and “get on with it” are valued. Feedback is blunt, immediate and task-focused. | Diplomatic and collaborative — often indirect. More stakeholders, slower consensus-based decisions. Instruction is often framed as a suggestion. Acknowledging struggle is encouraged. Feedback is softened and relationship-aware, which can itself be a barrier for someone used to explicit instruction. |
Four practical pointers for caseworkers
- Translate, don’t soften — in one direction. A direct request or blunt phrasing from an ND service member is not hostility. It is likely the only communication mode that feels honest and unambiguous. Don’t read tone as the message.
- Translate, don’t assume — in the other direction. Civilian-style feedback (“it might be worth considering…”) can be genuinely invisible as an instruction to someone used to explicit orders. State what you need plainly and in writing.
- Be the bridge, explicitly. Naming the cultural difference out loud builds trust. It signals you understand the context, which is itself a form of psychological safety.
- Watch for the transition point. If someone has recently left service or changed role, that transition is a high-risk window for previously-masked needs to surface — often expressed in directness that colleagues may misread as a complaint rather than a disclosure.
Discussion: PCPs in Your Organisation
Think about the written policies and unwritten expectations across MOD and DBS. Bring real examples — names stay in the room.
Q1 — What PCPs exist in your organisation that you have never examined for potential disadvantage? Q2 — Are there processes that would structurally disadvantage someone with anxiety, PTSD, chronic pain, ADHD or a neurodivergent condition? Name one. Q3 — If a tribunal asked you to justify one of those PCPs tomorrow, what would you say?Spotting what's beneath the surface
Planning, prioritising, initiating, sequencing, working memory.
Under strain: Missed tasks, difficulty starting, appearing disorganised despite effort, forgetting conversations, losing things, late to appointments.
Managing emotional responses in real time, particularly under pressure or uncertainty.
Under strain: Disproportionate responses, emotional flatness, difficulty recovering from setbacks, perceived ‘overreaction’ to feedback.
Physical and social conditions in which work takes place: layout, noise, predictability, social demands.
Under strain: Avoidance, reduced performance in specific settings, inconsistent output, disruptive behaviour, disengaged appearance.
How the individual processes sensory input: light, sound, touch, smell, movement, proprioception.
Under strain: Fatigue, overwhelm, difficulty concentrating, physical discomfort affecting focus, heightened sensitivity to environment.
No names needed. Describe what you're observing.
What might you ask?
Better, more structured adjustment conversations
| Question | What you are trying to understand |
|---|---|
| What | What specifically is harder about this? What is the actual impact on your work, your day, your experience? What does it stop you from doing or make significantly harder? What have you already tried? |
| When | When does it happen? Is it all the time, or in specific situations, at particular times of day, in certain meetings? |
| Who | Who is affected, or who is around when it happens? Does it happen with everyone, or in certain relationships or team dynamics? |
| Where | Where does it happen? Is this about a specific physical space, a remote or hybrid setup, a particular environment or site? |
| How | How does this affect you? How does this make you feel about your work? How does this impact you when you are not at work? |
WMW in Practice: Exercises
Exercise 1: Noise sensitivity
Exercise 2: Your real scenario
Applying the frameworks to real cases
Revisiting the True or False
The Practical Steps
- Initial conversation. Meet privately. Use WMW. Do not start with diagnosis. Do not start with “what do you want?”. Start with “what is making this harder?”
- Identify barriers. Use EEES as a lens. Which of the four areas is under strain? Often it will be more than one. Note what you find.
- Trial adjustments. Implement for 4–6 weeks with clear documentation. Document what is being trialled, why, and what “success” looks like. This is your legal record.
- Review and adjust. Conduct a mid-trial and final review. Did the adjustment work? Has the presenting need changed? The duty is ongoing.
Support channels available
Access to Work
Funding for tech, coaching, support workers, travel and workplace needs assessments. Up to £66,000+ per person.
Occupational Health
Clinical assessment and recommendations. Referral is support, not investigation.
Workplace Needs Assessment
Tailored adjustment recommendations — particularly useful where the employee cannot easily articulate their own needs.
Pull together what you have noticed
The law I already knew — and how it lands differently now I see how tribunals apply it.
Something that may be creating disadvantage without anyone having named it yet.
A situation where I would normally have waited, or not started the conversation at all.
Something we do that makes it harder for people to ask — and how I could change that.
Key frameworks and cases at a glance
EEES™ at a glance
| E | Executive Function: missed tasks, difficulty starting, losing things, forgotten conversations. |
| E | Emotional Regulation: disproportionate responses, flatness, difficulty recovering, perceived overreaction. |
| E | Environment: avoidance, inconsistent output, disengaged in specific settings. |
| S | Sensory: fatigue, overwhelm, difficulty concentrating, complaints about environment. |
WMW™ at a glance
| What | What specifically is harder? What is the actual impact? |
| When | When does it happen? Consistently or in specific situations? |
| Who | Who is around? All relationships or specific ones? |
| Where | Which environment, site or setting? |
| How | How does this affect you? How does it make you feel about your work? How does it impact you outside work? |
Key cases
| Madden v Met Police | Consider disability before disciplinary. Evidence must reach decision-makers. |
| Grosset (City of York v) | Arising in consequence: you must consider it and document that you did. |
| Williams v Royal Mail | Operational objections must be evidenced, not asserted. |
| Ferraro v DWP | Hybrid working as RA is established. Trivial-cost adjustments are indefensible to refuse. |
| Wright-Turner | Dismissal on sick leave with no process. Award £4.58M. |
| Barrow v Kellogg Brown & Root | Medication side effects are part of the disability. Long service creates a higher bar. Award £2.57M. |
| Borg-Neal v Lloyds | Zero-tolerance must be contextualised by disability. Award £470K+. |
Matt Gupwell · thinkneurodiversity.co.uk · Confidential — Training Use Only