Reasonable adjustments in the news again

Employers are frequently faced with difficult decisions as to what might constitute a 'reasonable adjustment' when considering an application from an employee.

Information on the Government's website informs us that:

'Employers must make reasonable adjustments to make sure disabled workers (including contract workers, trainees, apprentices and business partners) aren't seriously disadvantaged when doing their jobs. This includes:

  • Making reasonable adjustments during the recruitment process
  • doing things another way - e.g. allowing someone with social anxiety disorder to have their own desk instead of hot-desking
  • making physical changes - e.g. installing a ramp for a wheelchair user or an audio-visual fire alarm for a deaf person
  • letting a disabled person work somewhere else - e.g. on the ground floor for a wheelchair user
  • changing their equipment - e.g. providing a special keyboard if they have arthritis
  • allowing employees who become disabled to make a phased return to work - e.g. working flexible hours or part-time
  • offering employees training opportunities, recreation and refreshment facilities'

Despite the above on the Government's website, it is interesting to note that in the case of The Home Office (UK Visas & Immigration) v Kuranchie UKEAT/0202/16/BA the Home Office was found wanting in its treatment of a disabled employee.

Ms Kuranchie worked for the Home Office from 2006. She was dyslexic and dyspraxic and was thus classed as 'disabled'.  She spoke to her employer and pointed out that the lack of reasonable adjustments for her meant that she was having to work long hours to get her work done. 

The Employment Tribunal found that giving her the same volume of work as her colleagues placed her at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled colleagues. Reducing the workload would have been a reasonable adjustment and the Home Office was therefore in breach of its duty to make reasonable adjustments.

The subtle point in this case is that Ms Kuranchie did not ask for her workload to be reduced as part of the reasonable adjustments request BUT it was reasonable for the employer to consider this as an adjustment because the other adjustments that had been made had not removed the disadvantage to her.

Employers have to tread carefully in this area. If the Home Office can get it wrong, then so can many others.

If you would like to review your policies or discuss this or any other employment related issue, contact us.

Link to case:  http://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed34994

© 2024 ASR Advantage Solicitors. All rights reserved.


ASR Advantage Law Limited t/a ‘ASR Advantage Solicitors’, ‘ASR Solicitors’, ‘Advantage Law’, ‘Brown & Corbishley Solicitors’ and ‘David Bendell & Co’ is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Company No. 7333121. Advantage Law is Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for its Legal Services. SRA No. 565383. VAT reg. 203559621. Registered office: 70 Villa Road, Birmingham, B19 1BL. A list of Directors is available on request.
Lexcel logo