The duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 arises where a disabled employee is placed at a substantial disadvantage by a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) applied by the employer. In Hindmarch v North East Ambulance NHS Foundation Trust [2025] EAT 87, the EAT confirmed that the employer’s duty is context-specific and only arises if the proposed adjustment has a real prospect of alleviating the disadvantage. The tribunal found that, although Mr Hindmarch was disabled, providing the requested FFP3 mask would not have realistically enabled him to return to work, as it would not have eliminated his acute anxiety or provided complete protection against COVID-19. The employer was therefore under no duty to make an adjustment that would not be effective in reducing the disadvantage.
Assessing effectiveness of adjustments
Employers are not required to implement adjustments that have no real prospect of enabling the employee to return to work or reducing the disadvantage. The EAT emphasised that while an adjustment does not have to guarantee success, there must be a reasonable chance it will be effective. Employers should obtain and rely on medical or occupational health evidence to support their assessment of whether a proposed adjustment will work. In Hindmarch, the employer’s reliance on national PPE guidance and occupational health advice was key to demonstrating reasonableness.
Considering alternative adjustments
Employers should actively explore alternative roles, phased returns, or other adjustments if the requested adjustment is not feasible or effective.
In the Hindmarch case, the employer offered work in stores and considered phased returns, demonstrating a proactive approach to supporting the employee’s return.
Documenting these efforts is essential to show compliance with the duty to make reasonable adjustments and to defend against potential claims [1, 2].
Following national guidance and operational constraints
Adherence to national or sector-specific guidance (such as PPE allocation) can be a legitimate factor in determining what is reasonable.
Employers should also consider the operational practicality of the adjustment, including whether it can be safely and consistently implemented in the employee’s role.
In Hindmarch, the FFP3 mask was not recommended for non-emergency staff, could not be worn for a full shift, and was impractical for use while driving, supporting the employer’s decision.
Fair dismissal and procedural compliance
The fairness of a dismissal must be considered independently of the reasonable adjustments claim.
Employers must follow proper capability or absence management procedures, including consultation and review meetings, before making a decision to dismiss.
The EAT confirmed that the employer in Hindmarch had acted fairly by following its procedures and considering all relevant factors, including the employee’s engagement with occupational health and alternative duties.
Documentation and evidence
Maintain clear records of all communications, meetings, medical advice, and the rationale for decisions regarding adjustments.
Evidence of a thorough, consultative process and reliance on up-to-date guidance will be critical in defending any tribunal claim.
This article was created with insights from Lex HR - your always-on HR legal assistant. Lex HR helps HR professionals navigate complex employment law with confidence, providing real-time, reliable advice tailored to your needs. Try it free today and see how much easier compliance can be.
