Five Things Your Job Adverts Are Accidentally Doing to Exclude Disabled Candidates

Why the advert matters legally

Under section 39 of the Equality Act 2010, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a job applicant in the arrangements it makes for deciding whom to offer employment. Those 'arrangements' include job adverts - the wording, the format, the requirements listed, and the application process described. An advert that contains requirements not genuinely necessary for the role, or that is inaccessible to people with certain impairments, can constitute indirect discrimination.

The duty to make reasonable adjustments extends to applicants, not just employees - and it is anticipatory, meaning you cannot wait to be told someone needs an adjustment before offering one. You should be thinking about accessibility from the moment you draft the role description, not as an afterthought once a candidate raises a concern.

The problems are rarely intentional. They are pervasive precisely because they are embedded in hiring conventions that have never been critically examined. Here are the five patterns we see most often.

1. Vague 'essential' requirements that aren't essential

This is the most widespread problem and the one with the most direct legal exposure. Many job adverts list requirements as 'essential' that are, on examination, assumptions or preferences - not genuine requirements of the role.

Common examples: "Must hold a full UK driving licence" on a role that is primarily desk-based, with occasional travel that could be achieved by other means. "Must be able to work from our London office five days a week" when the actual requirement is availability during core hours and the ability to attend occasional in-person meetings. "Degree required" when what is actually needed are the skills and knowledge a degree might confer - which a candidate can demonstrate in other ways.

Each of these requirements, when not genuinely necessary for the role, can disproportionately exclude disabled people and may constitute indirect discrimination that cannot be justified. A blanket office attendance requirement, for example, will disproportionately exclude people whose disabilities make commuting difficult - and if it isn't actually necessary for the role, it cannot be justified.

The fix: Before publishing any requirement, ask: "What is the actual job function this supports - and is this the only way to meet it?" If you cannot answer that question convincingly, either reframe the requirement in terms of the underlying need, or remove it and mark it as desirable. Audit your essential requirements list rigorously before every hire.

2. Inaccessible application formats

A job advert that is readable and inclusive becomes meaningless if the application process isn't. PDFs that screen readers cannot navigate. Application portals that time out before the candidate finishes. Forms that require colour vision to complete. Video submissions as the only option. These aren't edge cases - they are common, and they represent a potential failure of the anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments.

The Applicant Tracking System (ATS) used by many organisations was designed for efficiency, not accessibility. Many popular platforms fail basic WCAG 2.1 AA requirements - meaning that a disabled candidate using assistive technology may not be able to complete the application at all, regardless of how good a fit they are for the role.

The fix: Offer more than one route to apply. State clearly - in the advert itself - that alternative formats are available on request. Audit your ATS for basic accessibility. Don't require candidates to create accounts if a direct application route is available. For senior or complex roles, consider whether a two-stage expression of interest process removes barriers for applicants who find long application forms difficult to complete.

3. Language that codes for a particular kind of worker

Certain words and phrases have been shown in research to discourage applications from disabled people, women, and candidates from some cultural backgrounds. The mechanism is straightforward: language signals culture. If your advert describes a role as requiring someone who is "high energy", "resilient", and "thrives in a fast-paced environment", it signals an organisation where a particular style of working is the norm - and candidates who know they work differently read that signal and self-select out.

This matters particularly for neurodivergent candidates, candidates managing chronic health conditions, and candidates with mental health difficulties. "Works well under pressure", "ability to handle stress", and "dynamic" are not neutral descriptors. They signal to many disabled candidates that they will not be welcomed or accommodated.

The fix: Describe what the job actually requires, not the personality type you imagine doing it. "Able to manage competing priorities" is more accurate and more inclusive than "thrives in a fast-paced environment." "Communicates clearly in writing and verbally" is more specific and more useful than "excellent communicator." Audit your language against your actual role requirements and remove anything that describes style rather than substance.

4. No mention of reasonable adjustments

The vast majority of UK job adverts contain no mention of reasonable adjustments, accessible interview formats, or the organisation's commitment to inclusion. For disabled candidates, this silence speaks. Many interpret it as unwillingness - and do not apply.

The boilerplate phrase "we are an equal opportunities employer" has become so ubiquitous as to be meaningless. Candidates know it is often a formality. It tells them nothing about whether the organisation will actually accommodate them, whether they will need to fight for adjustments, or whether they will be welcomed.

The fix: Include a short, specific statement - in the advert, in the job description, and in any interview invitation. Something like: "We're committed to making our recruitment process accessible to everyone. If you need any adjustments at any stage - application, interview, or assessment - please let us know and we'll make it happen." Then have a process that delivers on that promise. The statement is worthless if the process behind it isn't.

5. The 'ideal candidate' framing

Language like "the ideal candidate will be dynamic, driven, and able to hit the ground running" builds a picture of a specific person - one who needs no adjustment, no onboarding support, and no ramp-up time. This framing is pervasive in job adverts and discourages disabled candidates who may need a slightly longer settling-in period, a phased start, or a structured induction.

The irony is that the "hits the ground running" requirement almost always overstates what employers actually need. Most roles have a reasonable expectation of learning time. Framing the advert as though they don't excludes capable candidates and can also create an unrealistic expectation that leads to poor outcomes for non-disabled candidates too.

The fix: Describe the outcomes the role is responsible for - not the mythical person you imagine achieving them on day one. A candidate who needs reasonable adjustments can absolutely achieve strong outcomes. The adjustments are the means, not a limitation. Focus on what the role requires over six to twelve months, not what you hope someone will already know in week one.

Where to start

Auditing your job adverts for these five patterns is not a large project. Take your last three role descriptions and run them through the questions: Are all requirements genuinely essential? Is the application format accessible? Does the language describe work or personality? Does it mention adjustments? Does it describe outcomes or archetypes? The answers will show you quickly where the barriers are.

At TWIC, we work with organisations to audit their recruitment processes end-to-end - from job description to offer - and to build the structural changes that make hiring genuinely inclusive. The barriers are rarely the result of bad intent. They are the result of habit. Changing them takes less effort than most organisations expect, and the result is a wider, stronger talent pool.