Research and analysis

Annexes A to E

Published 11 September 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Annex A: List of contributors

We conducted interviews with 6 industry experts representing businesses, charities and unions: 

• Angela Matthews, Business Disability Forum
• Bria De La Mare, Scope
• Fazilet Hadi, Disability Rights UK
• Kate Shoesmith, British Chambers of Commerce
• Katrina Gilman, Unison
• Quinn Roache, Trades Union Congress

We interviewed 15 academic experts:

• Alice Martin, Work Foundation, Lancaster University
• Anna Lawson, University of Leeds
• Catherine Barnard, University of Cambridge
• Jed Meers, University of York
• Julia Black, University of Oxford
• Kim Hoque, King’s College London
• Kirstie Stage, University of Cambridge
• Megan Pearson, University of Southampton
• Nick Bacon, King’s College London
• Nicole Busby, University of Glasgow
• Paula Holland, Lancaster University
• Rachael Wallace, University of Dundee
• Sarabajaya Kumar, University College London
• Sarah Fraser Butlin KC, University of Cambridge
• Sophie Savage, University of the West of England

We also interviewed the following officials (anonymised):

• Judge, Employment Tribunal
• Judge, Employment Tribunal
• Judge, Employment Tribunal 
• Official, Acas (the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service)
• Official, Acas
• Official, Department for Work and Pensions
• Official, HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS)
• Official, HMCTS

We conducted an interview with 7 Acas conciliators on 4 February  2026.

Annex B: Employment Tribunal analysis

As part of this project, the Cabinet Office (CO) requested that the Policy Insights Unit (PIU) conduct a review of Employment Tribunal judgments (ETJs). The aim of this work was to determine if employer delay is a significant barrier preventing disabled workers accessing reasonable adjustments. This section summarises the findings of that review. 

Summary of findings

Delay is a barrier, but misaligned expectations are more significant

18% of cases (12 out of 66) involved an alleged delay in implementing reasonable adjustments. This shows that disabled employees do take their employers to tribunal for delaying making reasonable adjustments, but other barriers are represented more frequently in ETJs. 

• 68% of cases (45 out of 66) involved misaligned expectations over what adjustments would be ‘reasonable’ for an employer to provide
• 5% of cases (3 out of 66) involved disagreements relating to the cost of reasonable adjustments

32% of cases (21 out of 66) involved ‘other’ barriers, representing the variety of reasons why cases go to tribunal. These included the following:

• cases being time-barred because employees brought them too late
• employees providing inconsistent evidence at tribunal
• cases being thrown out because employees were not deemed disabled under the Equality Act 2010
• employees not recognising that reasonable adjustments had already been made
• tribunals giving employers leeway because of COVID-19

The success rate of reasonable adjustment complaints is low.

Reasonable adjustment complaints were successful in 9% of cases (6 out of 66). In a further 9% of cases (6 out of 66), reasonable adjustment complaints were partially successful, meaning the tribunal rejected one or multiple elements of a claimant’s reasonable adjustment complaint while ruling favourably on another element.

• 82% of cases (54 out of 66) involved completely unsuccessful reasonable adjustment complaints  

A majority of cases involved mental impairments. Most of these cases related to anxiety and depression. 

61% of cases (40 out of 66) involved a claimant with a mental impairment, either on its own or combined with a physical disability. Claimants cited anxiety and depression more frequently than any other impairment. This suggests the complex issues relating to neurodiversity and mental health are playing a significant role in reasonable adjustment cases that reach tribunal.

• 73% of claimants with mental impairments, either with or without physical disabilities (29 out of 40), cited anxiety
• 60% of claimants with mental impairments, either with or without physical disabilities (24 out of 40), cited depression

Methodology

Between 8 and 18 December 2025, a team of 4 PIU researchers reviewed 66 ETJs. This novel work is part of a project examining the factors influencing disability discrimination claims involving alleged failures to make reasonable adjustments. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools were not used when conducting this analysis.

This section covers: 

• how we created a sample of judgements to review
• how we analysed the sample
• the project’s quality assurance approach 
• the strengths and limitations of our methodology

How we created a sample of judgements to review.

ETJs are published and archived on the government’s employment tribunal decisions page. The page does not publish all ETJs, however it offers the most comprehensive publicly available online database of ETJs. As of 8 December 2025, the page listed 127,572 judgments from tribunals across England, Scotland and Wales. The page does not include judgements from Northern Ireland as equal treatment is a transferred matter. The law relating to reasonable adjustments is set out in the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Our analysis therefore excluded judgements from Northern Ireland. It was not feasible to review all judgements listed on the page, so we selected a manageable sample using the page’s filtering tools. 

To do this, we applied 4 filters available on the website to narrow the dataset. We then applied additional exclusion criteria to ensure the sample was accurate. This process is detailed on the next page. This process resulted in a final sample of 66 judgments across 7 locations. 

Location	Number of judgments
Edinburgh	18
Watford	15
Cardiff	8
Cambridge	7
Bristol	7
Sheffield	6
Dundee	5

Filtering process

Filter	Description	Number of judgments
Filter 1	Jurisdiction: disability discrimination Claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments are categorised as disability discrimination cases, thus falling into this jurisdiction.	21,002
Filter 2	Search term: judgment with reasons Some tribunal decisions are published without detailed discussions of the case and the influencing factors, instead only listing the outcome. These decisions provide limited analytical value, so we exclude them.	2,733
Filter 3	Search term: Section 20 Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 establishes the employer’s duty to make reasonable adjustments. Claims alleging a failure to make reasonable adjustments invoke this section.	1,032
Filter 4	Date after: 01/01/2023 This reduces the dataset to a more manageable sample. It also allows us to exclude pre-COVID cases. Union officials and HMCTS officials indicated that pre-COVID cases are unlikely to reflect current working patterns and issues affecting disabled workers.	457
Filter 5	Location: Selected employment tribunals To ensure coverage across England, Scotland and Wales, we reviewed judgments from specific locations: Edinburgh, Dundee, Cardiff, Cambridge, Sheffield, Bristol and Watford. (When searching for these judgments, we also selected the relevant location filter, ‘England/Wales’ or ‘Scotland’, on the portal.	145
Filter 6	Search errors: Unsuitable judgments The portal filters are not entirely accurate, meaning some cases were wrongly included in the search. We manually removed cases that were not held in one of the chosen tribunals (n=59), too long given our limited time frame (n=11) or did not add any analytical value to our understanding of the RA process (n=9).	66

How did we analyse the sample?

A team of 4 PIU researchers reviewed the judgments. We coded each decision for the following categories of information: 

• Case information: Case name, tribunal location 
• Claim outcomes: We recorded the outcome of each reasonable adjustment claim as either successful, partially successful, or unsuccessful. We did the same for any other claims made in each case. 
• Impairment type: Physical or mental impairment, or both
• Employee information: We recorded the employee’s job role and length of employment. We also recorded whether they had legal representation, which we treated as the presence of a paid, legal professional.
• Employer information: We recorded the employer’s industry and whether they had legal representation. We also noted their size, measuring employers with 200 or more employees as ‘large’.
• Barriers: We recorded the barriers impacting the reasonable adjustment dispute in each case, coding for delay, misaligned expectations, cost, and ‘other’. Note: Delay here indicates a delay in implementing reasonable adjustments, not a limitation/time-barring issue. Other issues around time were recorded under the ‘other’ category.

We also created a short summary for each case, detailing the key elements of the claims and the legal process. These were not coded. 

Quality assurance (QA)

Analysis of ETJs, especially using the decisions page, is relatively rare.  This analysis of reasonable adjustment claims at employment tribunal, therefore, represents a novel piece of research. To ensure judgements were reviewed and coded consistently, we have put several quality assurance checks in places. 

Each reviewer had 5 of their cases independently appraised by another reviewer. Any changes were recorded in the spreadsheet, with an additional column summarising changes. In 4 cases, secondary reviewers amended the ‘factors impacting the dispute’ coding: twice to add detail to an existing factor and twice to re-categorise the identified factor. In 2 instances, reviewers adjusted the outcome of a claim to ‘partially successful’. In total, 20 cases (30.3%) received a second review.

Each reviewer also had one case reviewed by a senior reviewer. A systematic QA process was undertaken to ensure the analysis was consistent and robust. No major changes were recommended in this process. However, the spreadsheet was adapted to include a comprehensive “Read Me” tab and for data trails to be easily traced back to the raw dataset. 

Key elements of this methodology were tested with Dr Megan Pearson (University of Southampton). There are very few papers analysing the ETJ dataset. However, Dr Pearson published similar research in 2024, reviewing flexible working requests via this page. Dr Pearson reviewed our inclusion criteria and thematic approach to analysing the judgments.

Strengths

Focused, deductive analysis. Themes were identified before conducting the analysis, informed by interviews with experts and a review of existing evidence.  

Trends across England, Scotland and Wales. Our sample reviews cases from across the three nations, identifying any relevant trends. 

Accurate and nuanced case reporting. Our manual analysis used a mixed approach of capturing data in a binary (for example, coded cells) and detailed (for example, free-text cells) way.

High-level information. This method allows us to identify overarching trends within the ET setting.

Quality of output. The robust and multi-layered quality assurance process enhances the reliability of the case review.

Limitations

Criteria for analysis. Although based on existing evidence, our deductive approach may have led us to overlook new themes, previously unidentified.

Unrepresentative of most RA journeys. The ETJs only offer insight into the experiences of those who escalated their claim. It does not necessarily represent the majority of experiences of the RA process.

Legal expertise. Reviewers do not come from a legal background, suggesting some nuances may have been overlooked due to jargon.

Sample size and type. The sample is relatively small and only captures cases heard at specific locations, rather than representing a random subset across all tribunals.

Non-exhaustive search terms. Filters on the ETJ portal are not always accurate, meaning some relevant cases may not have been captured within our search criteria.

Results

Claim outcomes

Table: Outcome of reasonable adjustment claim at tribunal

Outcome	Number
Unsuccessful	54
Partially successful	6
Successful	6
Total	66

The success rate for reasonable adjustment complaints at employment tribunals is very low. 

• 82% of reasonable adjustment complaints in our sample (54 out of 66) were completely unsuccessful
• 18% of cases (12 out of 66) were at least partially successful
• Of this group of cases, 50% (6 out of 12) were completely successful.
• The other 50% (6 out of 12) involved both successful and unsuccessful reasonable adjustment complaints. 
• Overall, only 9% (6 out of 66) of reasonable adjustment complaints were completely successful.

The outcome of the reasonable adjustment complaint often matched the outcome of other complaints in the case.

All cases with entirely successful reasonable adjustment complaints also included at least one additional successful complaint. Only 1 case in our sample involved a reasonable adjustment complaint independent of other complaints. 87% of cases (47 out of 54) with entirely unsuccessful reasonable adjustment components were also unsuccessful in all of their other claims. This suggests that claimants and judges view failures to make reasonable adjustments as elements within wider disputes about employers’ processes regarding disabled employees.

Disability type

Claimants with mental impairments make reasonable adjustment complaints at the same rate as claimants with physical disabilities.

Despite anecdotal evidence that most disability discrimination claims involve claimants with mental impairments, in our sample there was an even split between claimants who had physical disabilities (39%) and claimants who had mental impairments (39%). 21% of cases (14 out of 66) involved a claimant with both mental impairments and physical disabilities. 

Most cases involving claimants with a mental impairment related to anxiety or depression. 

73% of the individuals who made complaints on the grounds of mental impairment, either alone or combined with a physical disability (29 out of 40), cited anxiety in their case. 60% cited depression (24 out of 40). Other mental impairments cited by claimants in our sample include:

• PTSD (23%, 9/40)
• Stress (13%, 5/40)
• Autism/autism spectrum disorder (10%, 4/40)
• ADHD (10%, 4/10)
• Dyslexia (8%, 3/10)

Claimants with mental impairments were more likely to be successful in our sample, but by only a small margin.

77% of cases involving claimants with mental impairments only (20 out of 26), 92% of cases involving claimants with physical disabilities only (24 out of 26), and 71% of cases involving both forms of disability (10 out of 14) were unsuccessful. While the success rate for claimants remains low overall, this data does suggest that employers are more likely to incorrectly handle cases relating to mental impairment than cases relating to physical disability.

Additional complaint characteristics

Most complaints in our sample were made against large employers.

80% of cases in our sample involved large employers (53 out of 65), defined as companies with more than 200 employees. Note: One case was excluded from this case as it was made against multiple employers.

Employers had significantly more access to legal representation than claimants. 

100% of the employers in our sample had legal representation at tribunal, compared to only 29% of claimants (19 out of 66). Some claimants did receive support from non-legal representatives.

Legal representation did not lead to significantly improved case outcomes for claimants.

Claimants were either wholly or partially successful in 21% of cases (4 out of 19) in which they had legal representation. In contrast, claimants were either wholly or partially successful in 17% of cases (8 out of 47) in which they did not have legal representation

Claimants spent varying amounts of time employed before taking their employers to tribunal.

Our sample displayed significant diversity in the length of time claimants spent working in a role before filing ET claims against their employers. Periods of employment ranged from just over a month to 35 years. Note: 3 cases did not include information on employment length.

The fact that most claimants are not new employees implies that most cases relate to individuals who develop disabilities at work or whose disabilities become more impactful on their work as time progresses. Experts we interviewed have also identified this trend.

Barriers to obtaining reasonable adjustments

We identified 3 barriers that commonly prevent disabled employees obtaining reasonable adjustments. Misaligned expectations represented the most frequent barrier in our sample.

Based on our literature review and interviews with stakeholders and experts, we identified 3 barriers that prevent disabled employees obtaining reasonable adjustments: delay, misaligned expectations over what is ‘reasonable’, and costs. 

68% of cases in our sample (45 out of 66) involved misaligned expectations. 18% of cases (12 out of 66) involved a delay in the provision of reasonable adjustments, suggesting that delay is not the most significant factor affecting disabled employees trying to obtain reasonable adjustments. Only 5% of cases (3 out of 66) involved disagreements about the cost of reasonable adjustments.

We identified ‘other’ barriers in 32% of cases (21 out of 66). These included: 

• cases being time-barred because employees brought them too late
• employees providing inconsistent evidence at tribunal
• cases being thrown out because employees were not deemed disabled under the Equality Act 2010
• employees not recognising that reasonable adjustments had already been made
• tribunals giving employers leeway because of COVID-19
• employers failing to make adjustments due to poorly trained managers not recognising a need

No single ‘other’ barrier appeared frequently enough to draw conclusions based on its occurrence, other than to suggest that there is a large variety of reasons why disputes over reasonable adjustments may reach tribunal.

Misaligned expectations were most frequently a barrier in cases involving claimants with mental impairments. 

77% of cases involving a claimant with only a mental impairment (20 out of 26) hinged on misaligned expectations over what would have constituted a ‘reasonable adjustment’. This suggests that adjustments that can be made for mental impairments such as anxiety and depression are not as well understood as those that can be made for physical disabilities.

Annex C: Case studies

For each type of barrier we identified, a case study is included below. These examples are taken from the sample of employment tribunal judgments we analysed. They provide more detail of what each barrier may look like in real workplaces, though as each case is different, these examples should not be taken as typical.

The examples illustrate the following barriers:

• Case study A: Delay
• Case study B: Misaligned expectations
• Case study C: Cost
• Case study D: Multiple barriers

Case study A: Delay

Mrs M Taskova v GXO Logistics UK Limited

Summary: The claimant had a condition which affected her knee, making her disabled under the Equality Act 2010. Working as a Distribution Centre Operative, she was required to walk and stand, which significantly disadvantaged her if required for extended periods. 

Following an absence from work, she requested a change in duties. Her line manager agreed and explained that he would complete an occupational health referral form. The claimant was also referred to the respondent’s on-site physiotherapist. However, no occupational health appointment was arranged, and the claimant’s manager did not follow up, believing it was “out of his hands” once the referral had been submitted. 

Around 3 months later, the claimant requested a further referral. Additional delays arose when the occupational health organisation wanted to wait for x-ray results before conducting their assessment. The assessment eventually took place 7 months after the initial request.

The claimant stated that meaningful adjustments were not made until after this assessment, despite her earlier disclosure. Following a period of Early Conciliation with Acas, the claimant filed an Employment Tribunal claim, alleging a failure to make reasonable adjustments between February 2017 and January 2020.

Outcome: The case was partially successful, with the Tribunal finding that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments between 30 July and 2 August 2019, which led to the worsening of her condition.

Case study B: Misaligned expectations

Ms J Craig v The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland

Summary: The claimant had experienced significant trauma following a tonsillectomy when she was a teenager, leaving her with a fear of choking and an inability to wear anything around her face or neck. It was agreed after a preliminary hearing that she had the disabilities of anxiety and phobia. Her operational role as a Response Officer, she was involved in front line policing and expected to attend calls and incidents as they occurred while she was on duty. 

When the COVID-19 pandemic struck, the claimant’s disability meant her manager could not deploy her in any situation where it was necessary to wear a face mask. Following a leave of absence due to stress, the claimant argued that the respondent should allow her to return to an operational role without having to wear a face mask and to enter and work in her station without the use of a mask. The respondent instead offered a temporary reassignment to a role the claimant could perform at home, arguing that the necessary 2 metre distance could not be maintained for safety should the claimant return to work. 

Outcome: The tribunal agreed that any further steps to get the claimant back into her original role would have been unreasonable for the respondent to have to take as it would have increased the risk to the health and safety of the claimant and her colleague, as well as to any member of the public with whom the claimant came into close proximity.

Case study C: Cost

GM v Fife Council

Summary: This claimant was a Social Work Officer with the respondent for 20 years until his resignation in February 2023. His disability was determined as “mental fragility relating to harrowing historic sexual and physical abuse whilst the claimant was a child”. He had various absences due to mental health issues across the course of his employment. 

The claimant requested changes to his rota as he was struggling with the length of the shifts that he was required to complete. When requesting shorter shifts, he did not connect this to his mental health. 

Outcome: The tribunal ruled that to accommodate the claimant on shorter shifts would involve taking him on as a “supernumerary” which would have reduced the budget available for the service offered, when it was imperative to stay within costs to ensure that the service could be delivered. Adding to costs in this way was not considered a reasonable course for the council to take.  

Case study D: Multiple barriers

J Blair v The Scottish Ministers

Summary: The claimant was a civil servant who suffered from dyslexia, multiple energy-draining and other physical conditions. He required specialist equipment, which his employer agreed to. The employer provided equipment that was incomplete and did not meet the claimant’s needs. 

Outcome: The tribunal ruled that the respondent failed to provide auxiliary aids and to take reasonable steps to avoid disadvantage in the workplace. Unreasonable delays occurred in the provision of specialist equipment, and the claimant provided only poor communication as to the adjustments’ whereabouts, resulting in the employee having to chase them.

Annex D: Acas conciliator survey analysis

To supplement expert interviews and analysis of employment tribunal judgments, PIU surveyed 24 Acas conciliators. This work was designed to determine the scale of reasonable adjustment-related disputes that reach Acas, and the barriers that produce these disputes.

Summary of findings

Reasonable adjustment complaints are widespread and increasing

79% of conciliators reported that most or nearly all disability discrimination claims include a reasonable adjustment component, with 79% also saying that they have seen an increase in reasonable adjustment-related cases. 54% said this increase has been “significant”.

Mental health and neurodiversity reasonable adjustment cases are rising sharply

79% of conciliators reported a “significant” rise in cases citing mental impairments. Mental-health related adjustments such as counselling time, adjusted workloads and neurodiversity assessments featured prominently in responses on the types of adjustments that are commonly being requested. 

Misaligned expectations and a lack of knowledge are the greatest barriers in the reasonable adjustment process

When asked to identify the single biggest barrier in the reasonable adjustment process, 29% of respondents said a “lack of knowledge” and 29% said “misaligned expectations”. 83% of respondents reported encountering misaligned expectations all the time, most of the time or nearly all the time. The most common reason for this misalignment of expectations, reported by 70% of conciliators, is whether the request is reasonable. 

When delays occur, they are often because of delays within external organisations or in finding a second opinion

When asked to list the top 3 reasons why delays occur, 83% of respondents said that delays occur because employers seek second opinions on reasonable adjustment requests. 58% suggested that delays occur because of pressure on external organisations such as Access to Work and suppliers of auxiliary aids and specialist equipment. 

Methodology

Between 28 January and 4 February 2026, PIU conducted an online survey of Acas conciliators. 

This section covers:

• how we recruited a sample of Acas conciliators
• how the survey was designed and analysed
• the project’s quality assurance process
• the strengths and limitations of this methodology

Recruitment 

To understand the kinds of cases that are escalated to early conciliation with Acas, we purposely recruited 24 Acas conciliators to complete this survey. 

This was achieved by contacting a senior member of the Dispute Resolution Team, who identified relevant conciliators within the organisation. Once the survey had been created, the link was shared among the potential respondents. Respondents were also prompted half-way through the response window, to ensure as many conciliators participated as possible. 

Of the 24 survey respondents, the majority (58%) had been working as an Acas conciliator for more than 5 years. This meant that the survey responses are more likely to represent trends over time and be informed by a wider number of cases. 

Survey design and analysis

Our previous analysis informed this survey. We structured our questions around the barriers we had identified through prior research and included questions that covered any potential gaps in our understanding.

The survey was then tested internally and with Acas’ Dispute Resolution Team to read over the survey and reflect on its content and accessibility. Following this testing, we settled on our questions.

The survey remained open for a week, during which it received 24 responses from Acas conciliators. We analysed multiple-choice questions using descriptive statistics. The questions with free-text responses were categorised using individual coding frameworks for each question. The intention behind each of the coding frameworks is listed below, where relevant. 

Quality assurance (QA)

The results and analysis of these survey responses were peer-reviewed by members of the project team. The analysis, specifically the spreadsheet with the responses, then underwent a more rigorous quality assurance process by a senior analyst within PIU. During this QA process, one miscalculation was corrected, and the findings section was edited for clarity. These were then rectified by members of the project team, before the results were integrated into the report.  

Strengths and limitations

This survey attempted to capture a specific subset of attitudes and experiences, to understand the characteristics of reasonable adjustment complaints that are escalated to Acas. As such, the sample is highly representative of this group and meets this attempt for a focused snapshot of the reasonable adjustment journey. 

Additionally, the survey was informed by a range of existing evidence, as well as 2 methods of primary data collection, thus capturing the key themes and barriers of interest. These themes were explored concisely in the survey, allowing us to capture an understanding of the scale and severity of these experiences at conciliation. At the same time, this survey did not restrict responses on the part of conciliators, with multiple free text questions offering respondents the opportunity to identify any additional barriers we had not considered. 

However, the focused and pre-determined nature of the survey and its sample can also lead to various limitations:

Sample size and type

Although the sample was intentionally small and specific, this limits the representation of the survey findings and their applicability to the wider reasonable adjustment process. 

Unrepresentative of most reasonable adjustment journeys

This survey only offers insights into cases that are escalated to Acas. This survey cannot provide insight into the experiences of individuals who successfully access their requested adjustment.

Acas as a neutral body

Acas offers neutral mediation services for workplace conflict. It is not a source of legal advice and does not pass judgment on the claims of individuals or the reasonableness of a claim, more specifically. The survey results, therefore, should be viewed as observations of the claims, rather than judgments on their qualities or legal standing. 

Results

Scale of the issue

Table: Can you estimate how many disability discrimination claims include a reasonable adjustment complaint?

Response	Number of responses
Nearly all of them (80% to 100%)	9
Most of them (50% to 80%)	10
Some of them (20% to 50%)	4
Don’t know	1

79% of respondents reported that reasonable adjustment complaints were present in more than half of the cases they conciliated. These responses suggest that reasonable adjustments are a common element of many disability discrimination cases, though it does not give an indication of whether these claims are made in isolation or alongside other claims. 

Table: In your time working as a conciliator, have you seen a rise in the number of disability discrimination claims with reasonable adjustments complaints?

Response	Number of responses
Yes, the number of cases has increased significantly	13
Yes, the number of cases has increased slightly	6
No, the number of cases has stayed the same	3
Don’t know	2

Nearly all participants reported an increase in the number of disability discrimination claims with a reasonable adjustment element, with 54% describing this increase as “significant”.

Notably, no one reported that this number had gone down, even if disagreeing over the scale of change.

Table: Can you estimate how many disability discrimination claims with reasonable adjustment elements are resolved at conciliation?

Response	Number of responses
Most of them (between 50% and 80%)	2
Some of them (between 20% and 50%)	5
A few of them (between 0% and 20%)	12
None of them (0%)	2
Don’t know	3

Responses suggest that a few cases that involve reasonable adjustment claims are resolved at conciliation. However, this question had a broader variety of responses, with 2 respondents suggesting no cases are resolved, while another 2 respondents suggest that most of them are resolved. 

Table: Of the claims resolved at conciliation, can you estimate how many of those are resolved in favour of the employee?

Response	Number of responses
Nearly all of them (80% to 100%)	1
Most of them (50% to 80%)	1
Some of them (20% to 50%)	7
A few of them (0% to 20%)	4
None of them (0%)	1
Don’t know	10

There was a lack of consensus around the number that are solved in favour of the employee. The majority of individuals responded with “Don’t know”. This may be due to a flaw in the phrasing of the question. As a respondent detailed in one of the free-text responses, most conciliations involve a financial settlement, thus it is not clear to say whether a case was resolved in favour of one party or the other.

Table: When adjustments are agreed through conciliation, what factors commonly lead to successful resolution?

Response	Number of responses
Openness of both parties	10
Straightforward adjustment	7
Other	4

Responses to this free-text question largely represented 2 core themes – openness of parties throughout conciliation and the complexity of the adjustment. 

‘Other’ responses included knowledge of the law and conciliator input.

NB. 3 individuals did not answer this question and one individual included multiple answers.

Nature of the issue

Respondents did not report any clear trends in whether physical or mental disabilities were more commonly cited in claims involving reasonable adjustments. Specifically, 83% of respondents suggested that cases include a mixture of both conditions. However, 12.5% claims that these cases primarily include just mental impairments. One individual preferred not to answer this question.

Table: In your time working as a conciliator, have you seen a rise in the number of cases citing mental impairments as grounds for reasonable adjustment complaints?

Response	Number of responses
Yes, the number of cases has increased significantly	19
Yes, the number of cases has increased slightly	4
Don’t know	1

Despite this, respondents nearly all (96%) agreed that the number of cases citing mental impairments had increased in their time working as a conciliator. 

79% of the respondents reported this increase to be significant. 

Type of adjustment requested

In your time working as a conciliator, have you noticed any changes in the type of reasonable adjustment being requested? If yes, please explain

Response	Number of responses
Work from home	9
Mental health	7
Neurodiversity	5
No changes	2
Specific adjustments	1

Respondents identified 2 clear trends regarding the types of reasonable adjustment being requested. First, 58% of respondents suggested that claimants are more frequently requesting adjustments concerning mental health or neurodiversity. Second, 29% of conciliators reported that work-from-home requests are becoming more common. 

Barriers

Table: Thinking about the cases you have worked on, what is the single biggest barrier to accessing timely and effective reasonable adjustments in the workplace?

Response	Number of responses
Knowledge	7
Misaligned on reasonableness	7
Communication	3
Cost	2
Delays	1

29% of respondents identified issues around knowledge as the primary barrier in the process, with the same figure identifying misalignment on the meaning of “reasonable” as the primary barrier. Delays (4%), cost (8%) and communication (13%) were identified less frequently. 3 respondents did not answer this question. A further respondent said that there was not one most significant barrier.

Misaligned expectations

Table: How often do you encounter misaligned expectations (for example, disagreement over what is reasonable) between employers and employees in cases with a reasonable adjustment complaint?

Response	Number of responses
All the time	21%
Nearly all of the time	33%
Most of the time	29%
Some of the time
Prefer not to say

Respondents suggested that misaligned expectations between employers and employees are present in the majority of cases: 33% suggested they are present nearly all of the time, while 29% suggested they are present most of the time. 21% of respondents suggested that misaligned expectations are always present. 

Table: How often do you encounter cases where an employer has made an adjustment to meet an employee’s needs, but the employee has not viewed it as sufficient?

Response	Number of responses
Nearly all of them (80% to 100%)	4
Most of them (50% to 80%)	7
Some of them (20% to 50%)	12
Prefer not to say	1

Half of respondents claimed that “some of the time” cases involve employees who are not satisfied with adjustments that have been put in place. A further 29% suggested that this kind of misalignment occurs “most of the time” and 17% suggested that it occurs “nearly all of the time.”

In cases where the expectations of the 2 parties are misaligned, what are employers and employees most commonly disagreeing about?

Response	Number of responses
Whether a request is reasonable	15
Whether an individual is entitled to reasonable adjustments (for example, dispute over disability status)	4
Whether a timeframe to implement an adjustment is reasonable	2
Prefer not to say	1
All the above – are they disabled, is it reasonable, and timeframe to implement	1
Both whether a request is reasonable and whether an individual is entitled to reasonable adjustments	1

63% of respondents suggest that misaligned expectations usually result in disputes about what is reasonable. A smaller portion of respondents (17%) claimed that disputes are more likely to be about whether the claimant is disabled. 

Table: Are disputes over what is ‘reasonable’ more common in some types of cases than others? If so, what are these cases?

Response	Number of responses
Mental health	6
Performance v unfair dismissal	2
Hidden disabilities	2
Work from home	1
Knowledge	1
Long-term disability	1

Only 13 respondents answered this question. Of these, 46% suggested that disputes about what is “reasonable” are more common in cases that involve mental health than in other types of cases. 

In their response, one conciliator suggested that this is because of a “crossover between the general duty of care and the requirement for reasonable adjustment”, with some employees erroneously believing that the reasonable adjustment duty requires employers to ensure their workers are “happy all of the time”.

Knowledge and awareness 

Table: Employers understand their obligations to make reasonable adjustments

Response	Number of responses
Agree	6
Somewhat agree	11
Neutral	4
Somewhat disagree	3
Disagree	0

A majority of respondents (71%) agreed or somewhat agreed that employers understand that they have an obligation to provide reasonable adjustments. Only 13% somewhat disagreed.

Table: Employees understand their rights to access reasonable adjustments

Response	Number of responses
Agree	6
Somewhat agree	9
Neutral	3
Somewhat disagree	4
Disagree	2

Most respondents agreed (25%) or somewhat agreed (38%) that employees also understand their rights to access adjustments. A quarter of respondents, however, disagreed or somewhat disagreed, suggesting that employees do not understand their rights. 

Table: Employees understand the support offered by Acas

Response	Number of responses
Agree	4
Somewhat agree	7
Neutral	4
Somewhat disagree	5
Disagree	4

Respondents were split on whether employees understand ACAS support, with only 17% completely agreeing that employees understand what is available. An equal number of respondents completely disagreed that employees understand the available support. 

Ignoring requests

Table: Employers ignoring reasonable adjustment requests

Response	Number of responses
Often (50% to 80% of the time)	3
Sometimes (20% to 50% of the time)	11
Rarely (0% to 20% of the time)	10
Never (0% of the time)	0

Respondents agreed that employers do entirely ignore adjustment requests, with no respondents claiming that this “never” happens. 46% of respondents argued that employers ignore requests “sometimes” while 42% arguing that this happens only “rarely”. A smaller proportion (13%) claimed that employers ignore requests “often”.

Delay

Table: Employers delaying decisions on a reasonable adjustment request

Response	Number of responses
Nearly always (80% to 100% of the time)	3
Often (50% to 80% of the time)	8
Sometimes (20% to 50% of the time)	10
Rarely (0% to 20% of the time)	2
Never (0% of the time)	1

Respondents were conflicted on how often delays occur in the decision stage. One-third of respondents said delays occur “often” at this stage, while 42% of respondents claimed that delays only occur “sometimes”. A smaller proportion of respondents (13%) said that delays “never” or “rarely” occur at this stage. 

Respondents are also conflicted on how often delays occur in the implementation stage. 42% of respondents said delays occur “sometimes” at this stage, while one-third suggested they occur “often”. One respondent said delays “always” happen at this stage, with no respondents claiming they “never” happen. Only 8% of respondents said delays “rarely” happen at this stage.

Table: In cases where delays do occur, which of these reasons are the most commonly cited when explaining why employees were waiting? [Select up to three]

Response	Number of responses
Employers seeking a second opinion (for example, occupational health assessment)	20
Delays from an external organisation (for example, acquiring specialist equipment or funding)	14
Cases are too complex and require more time to assess what is reasonable	10
Employers unsure of their legal obligations	10
Employers intentionally delaying the reasonable adjustment process	2
Don’t know	1

Conciliators said that the most frequent reason for delays is employers seeking a second opinion, with 83% of conciliators selecting this option. 58% of conciliators said that delays are commonly the result of waiting for external organisations to provide funding or equipment. An equal number of conciliators said delays occur because cases are complex (29%) or employers are unsure of legal obligations (29%).

Cost 

Table: The cost of the reasonable adjustment being a factor in disputes that reach Acas

Response	Number of responses
Nearly always (80% to 100% of the time)	1
Often (50% to 80% of the time)	3
Sometimes (20% to 50% of the time)	5
Rarely (0% to 20% of the time)	13
Never (0% of the time)	2

A majority of respondents (54%) said that cost is “rarely” a factor in disputes that reach Acas. A further 8% said cost is “never” a factor. 21% of respondents said cost is “sometimes” a factor, while another 13% said cost is “often” a factor.

A lack of clarity

Table: A lack of clarity around the process of granting reasonable adjustments

Response	Number of responses
Nearly always (80% to 100% of the time)	7
Often (50% to 80% of the time)	7
Sometimes (20% to 50% of the time)	5
Rarely (0% to 20% of the time)	5

Most respondents said that a lack of clarity around the process of granting adjustments was either “often” (29%) or “nearly always” (29%) a factor in disputes that reach Acas. An equal proportion of respondents said that a lack of clarity is either “sometimes” (21%) or “rarely” (21%) a factor. 

Fear

Table: Employers not engaging with the process for fear of ‘doing it wrong’

Response	Number of responses
Nearly always (80% to 100% of the time)	1
Often (50% to 80% of the time)	3
Sometimes (20% to 50% of the time)	5
Rarely (0% to 20% of the time)	11
Never (0% of the time)	2

More than half of respondents said that employers “never” (8%) or “rarely” (46%) engage with the process because they fear “doing it wrong”. A further 8% said that this “never” happens. Fewer respondents said that employers do not engage for this reason “nearly always” (4%) or “often” (13%). 

Impact on wider workforce

Employers claiming the adjustment would be ‘unfair for other employees’

Response	Number of responses
Nearly always (80% to 100% of the time)	0
Often (50% to 80% of the time)	6
Sometimes (20% to 50% of the time)	7
Rarely (0% to 20% of the time)	7
Never (0% of the time)	2
Don’t know or prefer not to say	2

Respondents were conflicted on how often employers claim adjustments would be “unfair for other employees”. An equal number of respondents said that employers make this claim “rarely” (29%) or “sometimes” (29%). A quarter of respondents said that employers make this claim “often”. Only 8% of respondents said employers “never” make this claim. 

Additional commentary

Finally, we asked respondents if they had any further thoughts on reasonable adjustment disputes that reach Acas. 3 themes stood out: 

Employees need greater clarity just as much as employers. By the end of disputes, claimants are upset and struggle to see why the adjustment they request may not be seen as “reasonable” by the employer. Claimants are almost always employees so more support for them would be helpful.

Guidance should stress that the best way to reach agreement over adjustment is still through discussion with the employer. Parties need to be aware that settlement at Acas rarely solves issues around adjustments and that the actual enforcement mechanism, the tribunal, can take years. 

AI is unhelpful. Employees use information provided by AI as the basis for their dispute, sometimes mistaking its output for facts. AI may be driving employees’ lack of education because it is a cost neutral alternative to seeking qualified advice. 

Annex E: Employer attitudes matrix

This matrix below offers a potential tool for understanding employer behaviours throughout the reasonable adjustment process. Mapping intent against capability and understanding can be a useful framework for understanding why some requests may be rejected.

For example, a diligent employer may be well-intentioned, however, if they have low capacity or limited resources, a request may be deemed unreasonable due to the resources it requires. 

Neatly separating intent from capacity can be challenging, but recognising the interplay of these 2 factors can be a helpful step toward better understanding of employer perspectives and behaviours in this process.