The legal duty: what it actually says
Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees and job applicants. This duty has three limbs. It arises where: a provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared to a non-disabled person; a physical feature of premises has that effect; or the absence of an auxiliary aid has that effect. Where any of these apply, the employer must take such steps as it is reasonable to take to remove or reduce the disadvantage.
A 'substantial' disadvantage means more than minor or trivial. This is a low threshold. An employee who finds it significantly harder to perform certain tasks, concentrate, manage their workload, or be present in the workplace due to a health condition or impairment is likely to meet it.
Importantly, the duty is anticipatory for job applicants. You should not wait to be asked before considering whether adjustments may be needed at the recruitment stage. And for existing employees, the duty arises as soon as the employer knows or could reasonably be expected to know that the employee is disabled and likely to be at a disadvantage. Waiting for a formal diagnosis, an occupational health referral, or a formal HR process before considering adjustments is not a legally safe position.
Why the conversation doesn't happen
The gap between legal obligation and lived experience is striking. Nearly half of disabled employees report that the adjustments they need are not being made. That is not primarily a failure of policy — most organisations have a reasonable adjustments policy somewhere. It is a failure of conversation.
Managers avoid this conversation for understandable reasons. They fear saying the wrong thing, asking something intrusive, inadvertently discriminating, or making the employee feel singled out. Many have not been trained on how to have it. Some are anxious about what the employee might disclose, and what they will then be expected to do.
Employees avoid it for different but equally understandable reasons. They fear being labelled. They worry about being seen as less capable, managed out, or treated differently by colleagues. They may have tried to raise it before and been met with scepticism or inaction. And in many organisations, there simply is no established way of having the conversation — no prompt, no process, no invitation.
The result is silence. And in that silence, disabled employees often conclude that the organisation either cannot or will not support them — and eventually, many leave. This is not a hypothetical cost. The recruitment, onboarding, and lost productivity cost of losing an experienced employee is substantial. The Tribunal risk, if the employee concludes they were constructively dismissed, is potentially larger still.
Before the conversation: what you need to know
You do not need a formal diagnosis. This is perhaps the most important thing to understand before approaching this conversation. The Equality Act's definition of disability is functional, not medical: a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. 'Long-term' means has lasted, or is likely to last, 12 months or more.
You do not need to know the name of the condition. You need to understand how it affects the person at work. The question that matters is: what aspects of this person's role or working environment are currently making things harder for them? That is the question the reasonable adjustment conversation is trying to answer.
Confidentiality matters. Any information an employee shares about a health condition or disability must be treated as sensitive personal data under UK GDPR. Keep detailed, confidential notes of reasonable adjustment conversations and agreements. Share the information only on a strict need-to-know basis — typically, only those involved in implementing the adjustments. Do not discuss it casually with colleagues or include it in general team briefings.
Opening the conversation: language that works
The hardest part is beginning. Many managers delay because they cannot find the right words. The right words are simpler than you might think — the goal is to open a door, not to conduct a medical interview.
"I've noticed you've seemed under a bit of pressure recently. I wanted to check in — no agenda, just to understand how things are going and whether there's anything I can do to help."
"We're doing a review of how our team is working and I want to make sure everyone has everything they need. Is there anything about the way your role is set up that's creating any difficulty for you?"
"I want to make sure our working arrangements are set up in a way that works for everyone. Is there anything we could look at that would make things easier or better for you?"
Notice what these openings have in common: they do not ask about diagnosis, disability, or medical conditions. They focus on the person's experience of their work and what the organisation can do. They are low-pressure and leave space for the employee to share as much or as little as they choose.
"Is there something wrong with you?"
"Do you have a medical condition I should know about?"
"Are you actually disabled?"
"I've noticed you're struggling — do you think you're cut out for this role?"
These phrases are intrusive, often legally problematic, and almost guaranteed to close down the conversation. They also signal to the employee that the conversation is about managing a problem, rather than providing support.
When an employee discloses a condition
If an employee tells you about a health condition or disability, your first response matters more than almost anything that follows. Thank them for telling you. Not effusively — a simple "Thank you for telling me, I appreciate you sharing that" is enough. It signals that the disclosure was the right thing to do and that you are not going to treat it as a difficulty.
Then, ask what would help. Do not assume. Do not immediately reach for occupational health referrals or HR processes. Ask the person directly what they think would make a difference. They almost always know.
"What aspects of the role are currently most difficult for you?"
"What adjustments have worked well for you in the past, either here or elsewhere?"
"Is there anything we could change about how, when, or where you work that would make a real difference?"
"What would a good week look like for you, compared to what a typical week looks like right now?"
An occupational health referral can be a useful source of expert guidance — but it should be offered as one option among several, not as the default response that ends the conversation. Saying "We'll refer you to occupational health and see what they say" without first having an exploratory conversation with the employee can feel dismissive and delays action that might be straightforward to take immediately.
What to absolutely avoid
There are patterns of behaviour that Employment Tribunals see repeatedly in indirect discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments cases. Understanding them is useful not only for legal compliance, but because they are genuinely harmful.
- Expressing scepticism about the condition. "I'm not sure this really affects your ability to work" or "lots of people have that and manage fine" are not only dismissive — they expose the employer to significant legal risk. The employee has already met the threshold of what needs to be disclosed.
- Making the person feel like a burden. Even well-intentioned comments like "this is going to be complicated to sort out" or "I'll have to check with HR" — said with visible reluctance — communicate that the employee's need is an inconvenience.
- Referring to adjustments as 'special treatment' in front of colleagues. This is a form of disclosure without consent and puts the employee in an impossible position. Reasonable adjustments are a legal right, not a privilege, and should be framed accordingly.
- Promising something and not delivering. If you agree an adjustment and then fail to implement it, the employee may conclude that the organisation's commitments mean nothing — and the next conversation will be significantly harder to have.
After the conversation: the steps that make it real
Document everything. Agree any adjustments in writing — even informally, via email — so that both the manager and the employee have a shared record of what was agreed. This protects both parties and creates a baseline for reviewing whether the adjustments are working.
Set a review date. Reasonable adjustments are not a permanent and fixed arrangement — they should be reviewed as the person's needs, the role, and the working environment change. A review date also signals that the conversation is ongoing, not a one-off problem to be closed and filed.
Check in informally. The formal review date matters, but so does the informal moment two weeks later when you notice how things are going and ask. This is what distinguishes a manager who treats reasonable adjustments as a normal part of good management from one who treats them as a compliance exercise.
The mindset shift that makes the difference: The best managers don't think of reasonable adjustments as a response to a legal obligation. They think of them as a natural part of managing diverse people well. When the question "what do you need to do this job well?" is a normal part of how a team operates — asked of everyone, not just those who disclose a condition — the stigma around disclosure reduces, and the conversations that need to happen become easier to have.
Reasonable adjustments are often simple. Adjusted hours. A quieter workspace. Written rather than verbal instructions. Additional time for certain tasks. The barrier is rarely the adjustment itself — it is almost always the conversation that precedes it. Having that conversation well is one of the most valuable things a manager can do.