Search

How can we help?

Icon

Changing reasonable adjustments could be discriminatory

Employers should be aware that changing or removing adjustments for a disabled employee could amount to a failure to make reasonable adjustments, even if they are replaced with other adjustments.

In Northumberland Tyne & Wear NHS Foundation Trust v D Ward (2019), the claimant had chronic fatigue syndrome. As a result of this disability, she was more likely to have higher absences than other employees. The trust amended the application of its sickness and absence policy in her case so that the threshold for triggering disciplinary action was increased to five periods of absence in 12 months, rather than three. During the four years that this extension was in place, the claimant avoided triggering disciplinary action. However, when the extension was removed and the standard policy applied to her instead, the claimant’s absences resulted in disciplinary action and ultimately dismissal.

The claimant had chronic fatigue syndrome.

When the Trust removed the extension, it did introduce other adjustments to the claimant’s workload and hours instead. However, the EAT found that the Tribunal had been entitled to conclude that there had been a failure to make reasonable adjustments because the new measures had not ameliorated the disadvantage faced by the claimant, or only did so to a limited extent. The Trust had failed in its duty by not providing the reasonable adjustment that was actually capable of ameliorating the disadvantage – the extension to the policy

This leaves employers in a challenging position. An adjustment that is considered reasonable at a particular point in time cannot automatically be treated as reasonable indefinitely, but this case shows that any changes will need to be well thought through – particularly where the adjustment appears to be working well from the perspective of the disabled employee. If an employer needs to make alternative arrangements, it should be on the basis that the previous adjustments have genuinely ceased to be reasonable and any new adjustments are just as effective.

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

Caroline Lendrum

Associate

View profile

+44 118 960 4669

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 26 November 2025
  • Employment

The Data Use and Access Act 2025 – how to handle data protection complaints

This article will focus on, in particular, the requirement for data controllers to ensure that, by June 2026, appropriate complaint procedures are put in place (s 103).

art
  • 20 November 2025
  • Immigration

The Innovator Founder Visa: What It Is & How Recent Home Office Changes Empower Student Entrepreneurs

The UK’s Innovator Founder visa is designed to attract ambitious entrepreneurs who can build innovative, viable, and scalable businesses in the UK.

art
  • 18 November 2025
  • Employment

Employment Rights Bill – Enhanced protections for pregnant women and new mothers

The Employment Rights Bill will make it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave and mothers who return to work for at least six months after they return to work, expect for specific circumstances.

art
  • 12 November 2025
  • Employment

GDPR: Who are data controllers and processors?

Controllers and processors have a different set of responsibilities, and have various responsibilities when dealing with data breaches.

Pub
  • 11 November 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

The Autumn Budget 2025: Key considerations for business buyers and sellers

Join Stuart Mullins and Nicky Goringe Larkin as they discuss some of the likely implications of the Autumn Budget 2025 for those looking to buy and sell businesses.

art
  • 11 November 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

Directors Duties: Honesty and Goodfaith 

In June the Court of Appeal found that a director had failed to comply with their statutory duty.