Reasonable Adjustment Risk
How robust is your reasonable adjustment process?
Most organisations have a reasonable adjustment policy. Far fewer can demonstrate it works consistently in practice — and that gap is where tribunal cases are won and lost.
16%
of disability discrimination claims now involve failure to make reasonable adjustments — up from 9% in 2023
£28k
average tribunal award in disability discrimination cases
95%
rise in employment tribunals involving neurodiversity in the past 5 years
36%
of neurodivergent employees have received no guidance or support for adjusting their workplace.
This screener takes under 2 minutes. It highlights where your reasonable adjustment process may be creating legal exposure — before it becomes a formal case.
Question 1 of 5
When a reasonable adjustment is requested, how confident are you that every manager in your organisation handles it the same way?
Great — consistency is your evidence.
If this ever goes to tribunal, consistent handling is exactly what you'll need to demonstrate. One important question: have you surveyed your managers directly to verify this confidence is grounded in what's actually happening on the ground?
This is more common than you might think — and it can be fixed.
Inconsistency in how managers handle requests isn't unusual, but it does create risk. When the same request is handled differently across teams, it signals a process gap rather than a people problem — and that's something that can be remedied with the right structure and guidance.
Question 2 of 5
In the last 12 months, has a reasonable adjustment request taken more than 30 days to resolve?
Strong — timely resolution matters.
Resolving adjustments promptly is one of the clearest signals of a functioning process. A follow-up question worth asking yourself: do you have confirmation from the individual that the adjustment is actually working? And are you checking in quarterly to ensure it still meets their needs?
This is a signal worth taking seriously.
Delays beyond 30 days are one of the most common factors cited in tribunal cases involving reasonable adjustments. Timely resolution — and a record of it — is critical. If this has happened, it's worth understanding why and putting a clear process in place to prevent it recurring.
Question 3 of 5
If a manager received a reasonable adjustment request tomorrow, would they know exactly what to do — without calling HR first?
That's strong manager capability.
Managers who know what to do in the moment are your first line of defence. One thing worth verifying: have you surveyed managers directly to confirm this confidence? What managers say they would do and what they actually do can sometimes differ — especially under pressure.
This is very common — and can be remedied quickly.
Most managers want to do the right thing but don't have a clear enough reference point for what that looks like in practice. This isn't a performance issue — it's a design issue. With the right guidance and structure, manager confidence can be built relatively quickly.
Question 4 of 5
If a tribunal requested evidence of consistent application of your reasonable adjustment process across teams and managers, how confident are you in what you could provide?
Excellent — documentation is your defence.
The ability to produce evidence of consistent process application is one of the most important factors in tribunal outcomes. Ensure those documents are filed safely, accessible, and that the record includes the outcome and any follow-up — not just the initial request.
This is often the reason organisations lose at tribunal.
It's not enough to have done the right thing — you need to be able to demonstrate it. Poor documentation of reasonable adjustment decisions is one of the most significant and avoidable sources of tribunal risk. Understanding what to record, and where to store it, is a practical and fixable problem.
Question 5 of 5
When a performance concern is raised, is there a formal prompt to consider whether a neurodivergent trait, mental health condition, or other health factor could be a contributing factor — before the process progresses?
This is genuinely important work.
Performance management frameworks are typically designed around an average worker. Building in a prompt to consider health and neurodivergent factors before progressing a concern is how organisations ensure equity — and protect themselves from claims that a protected characteristic was a factor in the outcome.
This is a significant gap and a trigger for formal claims.
Under the Equality Act, organisations must ensure that neurodivergent and disabled employees are not disadvantaged by processes designed for the average worker. Progressing a performance concern without first considering whether a health factor is contributing is one of the most common routes to a grievance — and a potential discrimination claim.
Your Screener Results
Here's what your answers signal
Based on your responses, here's an honest picture of where your reasonable adjustment process may be creating risk.
Confidence Score
0/5
Question by question
⚠ What this means in practice
Organisations with gaps in these areas typically also see higher sickness absence, lower retention among neurodivergent employees, and difficulty attracting and keeping diverse graduate talent. These are not separate problems — they are symptoms of the same system failures.
We can help you close these gaps.
SENSA® works with organisations to identify exactly where reasonable adjustment processes are breaking down — and redesign them so they're consistent, defensible, and genuinely inclusive. Book a call to find out what that looks like for your organisation.
Book a call with SENSA® →