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
  • 09 April 2026
  • Employment

Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave: the new statutory right explained

art
  • 02 April 2026
  • Commercial Real Estate

Can I have access to a neighbour’s land to carry out works to my property?

As a landowner, maintaining and repairing your property is important. It may be the case that to do so, you will need to access the land of a neighbour.

art
  • 01 April 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Recognising DSARs: top tips for organisations

The UK GDPR grants Data Subjects, who are the individuals to whom the personal data relates, rights over their personal data, including the rights of access, correction and erasure.

art
  • 30 March 2026
  • Employment

Legislative Changes – What Employers Need to Know for April 2026

With the phased implementation of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA), alongside other legislative updates, April 2026 brings a wide range of important changes for employers.

Pub
  • 27 March 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Shareholder Disputes: What to do when disputes arise – Episode 4

Join Stuart Mullins and Jack Hobbs for episode four of our Shareholder Disputes podcast series as they confront the realities of shareholder fallouts and share practical strategies for managing these complex situations.

art
  • 24 March 2026
  • Immigration

Spouse Visa – Is your relationship genuine and subsisting?

For years many couples have become frustrated by the requirements for a spouse visa as the rules and guidance are difficult to understand. A significant amount of applications are rejected on the basis of the applicant not providing the adequate documents to evidence the relationship requirement.