The Equality Act 2010 - Duty to make reasonable adjustments

Learning Outcomes

This article explains the Equality Act 2010 duty to make reasonable adjustments, including:

• Statutory basis and scope under sections 20–21 of the Equality Act 2010
• Triggers for the duty: provisions, criteria or practices (PCPs), physical features, and absence of auxiliary aids
• Anticipatory duty for service providers versus employers’ knowledge-based duty
• Threshold of “substantial disadvantage” (more than minor or trivial)
• Factors used by courts to assess reasonableness (effectiveness, practicability, cost, resources, disruption, and external assistance)
• Unlawful discrimination arising from failure to make reasonable adjustments
• Remedies and forums for enforcement (county court and employment tribunal)
• Key case law and practical application in legal service and employment contexts

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, especially as it applies to legal service providers and employers, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• the legal basis and scope of the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons (ss 20–21 Equality Act 2010)
• the anticipatory nature of the duty for service providers (s 29), contrasted with employers’ duty triggered by actual or constructive knowledge
• the meaning of "substantial disadvantage" (more than minor or trivial) and the benchmark of “reasonableness”
• the main types of reasonable adjustments (PCPs, physical features, auxiliary aids) with practical legal practice examples
• the factors used to assess what is reasonable (effectiveness, feasibility, cost, resources, disruption, and external funding such as Access to Work)
• the application of the duty in legal practice and employment, including recruitment and digital access
• how failure to comply (s 21) leads to discrimination claims, forums (county court/employment tribunal), and remedies
• relevant case law illustrating the duty in action (Archibald, Paulley, Finnigan, Government Legal Service v Brookes)
• vicarious liability for discriminatory acts by staff (s 109), and the prohibition on passing adjustment costs to service users

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. What triggers the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010?
2. What is meant by the "anticipatory" nature of the duty for service providers?
3. Name two factors a court will consider when deciding if an adjustment is reasonable.
4. Give an example of an auxiliary aid that might be a reasonable adjustment for a disabled client.

Introduction

The Equality Act 2010 imposes a positive duty on employers, service providers, and others to take steps to avoid disability-related unfairness before it happens. Section 20 sets out the duty to make reasonable adjustments; section 21 makes failure to comply unlawful discrimination. This duty aims to remove or reduce substantial disadvantages faced by disabled individuals compared to non-disabled people across policies/practices, physical environments, and the provision of aids or services. For SQE1, you must understand when the duty arises, what adjustments may be required, and how reasonableness is assessed in practice.

Key Term: reasonable adjustment
A change or support that removes or reduces a substantial disadvantage for a disabled person compared to others, required by law if reasonable.

Key Term: substantial disadvantage
A disadvantage that is more than minor or trivial, caused by a provision, criterion, practice, or physical feature.

Key Term: anticipatory duty
The obligation on service providers to consider and address barriers for disabled people in advance, not just when a specific individual requests it.

The Legal Framework

The duty to make reasonable adjustments is set out in sections 20–22 of the Equality Act 2010. Section 20 identifies three requirements (PCPs, physical features, and auxiliary aids/services). Section 21 provides that a failure to comply with the duty in respect of an individual is discrimination. Part 3 (notably s 29) applies these duties to service providers (including solicitors), and Part 5 applies to work (employers and recruitment). Section 109 creates vicarious liability so that acts of employees are treated as done by the employer, subject to a “reasonable steps” defence.

The duty operates alongside other protections in the Act:

• discrimination arising from disability (s 15), where unfavourable treatment stems from consequences of a disability, subject to justification if proportionate
• harassment (s 26) and victimisation (s 27), including protection when someone requests adjustments or supports another’s claim
• positive action (including s 159), permitting limited more favourable treatment to address disadvantage or under-representation

When does the duty arise?

The duty is triggered when a disabled person is placed at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled people by:

• a provision, criterion, or practice (PCP)
  Examples: standard forms in small print; rigid appointment times; mandatory telephone-only contact; psychometric testing that disadvantages certain neurodivergent candidates.

• a physical feature of premises
  Examples: stepped entrances; heavy, self-closing doors; poor signage; inadequate toilet facilities.

• the lack of an auxiliary aid or service
  Examples: portable hearing loops; British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters; screen-reader accessible documents; easy-read materials.

Employers must make adjustments when they know, or could reasonably be expected to know, that an employee or applicant is disabled and likely to be disadvantaged. Knowledge may be actual (disclosure) or constructive (obvious indicators). Service providers (such as law firms) have an anticipatory duty—they must plan ahead for the needs of disabled people generally, not just react to individual requests. For service providers, the duty arises irrespective of whether they are aware of a particular person’s disability at the point of use.

Exam Warning
The knowledge element applies to employers in work settings, but service providers must anticipate barriers whether or not they are aware of any specific disabled user. A provider’s lack of knowledge does not defeat the duty to anticipate.

What types of adjustments may be required?

There are three main categories:

1. Changing policies, practices, or procedures (PCPs)
   Examples: Flexible appointment lengths; offering alternatives to telephone (text relay, email, video); allowing a support person in meetings; adjusting attendance or performance criteria in recruitment or work processes; providing quiet rooms.

2. Altering physical features
   Examples: Installing ramps or platform lifts; widening doorways; modifying reception desks; improving lighting and signage; reconfiguring rooms to create step-free routes; providing accessible toilets; relocating services to an accessible floor. If a feature cannot reasonably be altered, adopting a reasonable alternative method of service delivery is required (e.g., home visits or virtual appointments).

3. Providing auxiliary aids or services
   Examples: Portable induction loops; BSL interpreters; speech-to-text reporting; accessible document formats (large print, braille, audio, easy read, tagged PDFs for screen readers); assistive technology (screen readers, magnification software); note-takers or human support.

Legal service providers should also consider digital accessibility (e.g., websites and online portals compatible with assistive technologies) because online PCPs can create substantial disadvantage.

What is "reasonable"?

Not every adjustment is required—only those that are reasonable. The Act does not exhaustively define “reasonable,” but courts consider:

• the effectiveness of the adjustment in overcoming the disadvantage
• practicality and feasibility (including timescales and technical constraints)
• the cost, balanced against the resources and size of the organisation
• the disruption caused (to service delivery or others)
• the availability of external assistance (e.g., grants or support schemes such as Access to Work)
• health and safety considerations or impacts on the nature/essence of the service

The larger the organisation and the greater its resources, the more is expected. For service providers, the cost of adjustments cannot be passed onto clients or service users. Where a physical feature cannot reasonably be changed, a reasonable alternative method of providing the service must be adopted.

The anticipatory duty for service providers

Service providers must consider the needs of disabled people in advance. This means reviewing policies, processes, digital platforms, and premises, training staff, and making physical or procedural changes where necessary, even if no disabled person has yet requested access. The duty is owed to disabled people generally; only a person affected by a failure can bring a claim, but preparation must be undertaken proactively.

Exam Warning
For service providers, the duty is not limited to existing clients. Firms must anticipate and address barriers for disabled people generally, and must not impose charges for adjustments.

Application in Legal Practice

Solicitors and law firms must ensure their services are accessible to disabled clients and prospective clients. This includes:

• providing documents in accessible formats (e.g., large print, braille, audio, Easy Read, tagged PDFs)
• adjusting communications and appointments (e.g., text relay, email, video calls, longer meetings, home visits)
• ensuring premises are accessible (e.g., step-free access, clear signage, accessible toilets)
• ensuring reception and case-handling processes do not indirectly exclude disabled users (e.g., requiring telephone-only contact)
• training staff to identify barriers and assist disabled clients appropriately
• reviewing digital platforms for compatibility with assistive technology
• adopting a reasonable alternative service method if an adjustment to a physical feature is not feasible

Employers in legal practice must also make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees and applicants, such as modifying workstations, adjusting hours, providing assistive technology, altering performance measures, and adapting recruitment processes (e.g., changing test formats where they cause substantial disadvantage).

Worked Example 1.1

A client with a visual impairment asks for a copy of a retainer letter in large print. The firm does not have a large print version and tells the client to bring someone to read it to them. Has the firm complied with its duty?

Answer:
No. The firm should have anticipated the need for accessible information and provided the letter in large print or another suitable format. Failing to do so is likely a breach of the anticipatory duty.

Worked Example 1.2

A law firm occupies an office with steps at the entrance and no ramp. A wheelchair user cannot enter. The firm says it has no disabled clients and so no need to make changes. Is this correct?

Answer:
No. The duty is anticipatory. The firm must consider and remove barriers for disabled people generally, not just current clients. Installing a ramp or providing an alternative accessible route may be a reasonable adjustment; if alterations are not reasonably practicable, a reasonable alternative method of service (e.g., home or video appointments) must be offered.

Worked Example 1.3

A small high street firm is asked by a client with a hearing impairment to provide a sign language interpreter for a meeting. The firm says it cannot afford the cost. Is this reasonable?

Answer:
It depends. The court will consider the firm's resources, the cost of the interpreter, and whether the adjustment is effective. If the cost is disproportionate to the firm's size and income, it may not be reasonable, but the firm should consider alternative adjustments (e.g., speech-to-text reporting, portable loops, or remote BSL interpreting) and explore external assistance.

Worked Example 1.4

A candidate discloses autism and requests adjustments to a multiple-choice situational judgment test used in recruitment. The firm refuses, saying the test is a standard PCP and all candidates must take it in the same way. Is that lawful?

Answer:
Likely not. If the test places the candidate at a substantial disadvantage, adjustments (e.g., alternative formats, additional time, or a different assessment method) may be reasonable. Refusing adjustments could be a failure to comply with s 20 and may also amount to discrimination arising from disability (s 15), as highlighted in Government Legal Service v Brookes (UKEAT 0302/16).

Worked Example 1.5

A firm’s website requires complex drag-and-drop actions and has unlabelled buttons, making it inaccessible to screen reader users. A prospective client complains they cannot submit an enquiry. Does the duty apply to the website?

Answer:
Yes. Digital processes are PCPs. If they cause substantial disadvantage, the firm must take reasonable steps—e.g., ensuring compatibility with assistive technology, adding alternative input routes, and labelling elements—so disabled users can access the service.

Worked Example 1.6

A firm’s reception desk is too high for wheelchair users to communicate with staff. Structural alterations would be expensive. What must the firm do?

Answer:
If modifying the physical feature is not reasonably practicable, the firm must adopt a reasonable alternative method of service—e.g., providing a lower counter elsewhere, portable clipboards, or meeting clients in an accessible area. The duty requires avoiding disadvantage or providing an alternative method of service where practicable.

Worked Example 1.7

A paralegal supports a colleague’s request for adjustments due to MS. The manager removes the paralegal from a high-profile matter “for causing trouble.” Is that lawful?

Answer:
Likely not. The paralegal may be protected from victimisation (s 27), as they did a protected act by supporting claims under the Act. Subjecting them to a detriment because of the protected act is unlawful.

Factors Affecting Reasonableness

When deciding if an adjustment is reasonable, consider:

• the size and resources of the organisation (what may be reasonable for a large firm may be different for a sole practitioner)
• the cost of the adjustment and practicality of implementation
• the extent to which the adjustment effectively overcomes the disadvantage (effectiveness is central)
• the disruption caused to the business or others
• the availability of financial support (e.g., Access to Work can fund workplace adjustments; some aids have low or no cost)
• whether an alternative method of service can reasonably avoid the disadvantage where physical alteration is impracticable

No adjustment can be required if it would fundamentally change the nature of the service or impose an unreasonable financial burden considering the organisation’s resources. However, service providers must not charge users for adjustments. Employers should consult disabled employees/applicants to identify barriers and trial possible solutions.

Revision Tip

For SQE1, remember that the duty is ongoing. Firms must regularly review and update adjustments as circumstances and technology change. Conduct accessibility audits (premises and digital), update staff training, and record the adjustments offered and implemented.

Consequences of Failing to Make Adjustments

Failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments is unlawful discrimination (s 21). Affected individuals can bring a claim in the county court (for services) or employment tribunal (for work).

• Time limits: Typically 6 months (less one day) for services claims and 3 months (less one day) for employment tribunal claims, subject to extension where just and equitable.
• Remedies: Declarations, injunctions/orders to make the adjustment, and compensation for loss and injury to feelings (assessed in line with established bands). The court may also require the service provider to implement specific adjustments.
• Vicarious liability: Firms may be liable for discriminatory acts by employees (s 109), even if done without knowledge or approval, unless they can show they took reasonable steps to prevent such acts.
• Costs: Service providers cannot recover the cost of adjustments from service users.

Failure to make adjustments may also underpin claims of discrimination arising from disability (s 15), harassment (s 26) or victimisation (s 27).

Key Case Law

• Archibald v Fife Council [2004] UKHL 32
  The House of Lords held that reasonable adjustments may require treating a disabled person more favourably, such as transferring them to a different role without competitive interview, where that removes a disadvantage.

• Paulley v FirstGroup plc [2017] UKSC 4
  The Supreme Court found that a bus company had not done enough to enable wheelchair users to access designated spaces, reinforcing proactive, practical steps to avoid disadvantage in service provision.

• Finnigan v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [2013] EWCA Civ 1191
  Providing a sign language interpreter was a reasonable adjustment in public services; auxiliary aids include human assistance where appropriate.

• Government Legal Service v Brookes (UKEAT 0302/16)
  Refusal to adjust recruitment testing (a PCP) for a candidate with Asperger’s Syndrome was unlawful. Employers must consider adjustments to PCPs in recruitment to avoid substantial disadvantage.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Sections 20–21 Equality Act 2010 impose a positive duty to make reasonable adjustments; failure is unlawful discrimination.
• The duty applies to employers and service providers, including solicitors; service providers’ duties are anticipatory and owed to disabled people generally.
• The duty arises where a PCP, physical feature, or absence of an auxiliary aid places a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled people.
• What is "reasonable" depends on effectiveness, practicality, cost, resources, disruption, and external assistance; larger organisations can be expected to do more.
• Where altering a physical feature is not reasonably practicable, a reasonable alternative method of service must be offered.
• The cost of adjustments cannot be passed onto service users.
• Employers must act when they know or ought reasonably to know of a disability and likely disadvantage; recruitment PCPs must be adjusted where reasonable.
• Claims can be brought in the county court (services) or employment tribunal (work), with remedies including compensation and orders to make adjustments.
• Firms may be vicariously liable for staff acts unless they can show reasonable steps were taken to prevent discrimination.
• The duty is ongoing and should be periodically reviewed across premises, processes, and digital platforms.

Key Terms and Concepts

• reasonable adjustment
• substantial disadvantage
• anticipatory duty