By Daniel Morgan-Williams, Founding Director of Visualise Training and Consultancy
 A screen magnifier costs less than an ergonomic office chair. One employer calls it ‘reasonable’. Another says it’s too expensive. Both are compliant with the Equality Act 2010. How is that possible?
The answer lies in one small but powerful word: ‘reasonable’. When it comes to workplace adjustments for disabled employees, ‘reasonable’ is the legal standard — but it’s also one of the most subjective terms in UK employment law. It means different things to different employers, and as a result, the same need can be met with enthusiasm in one workplace and dismissed in another.
The Intention of the Equality Act 2010
The Equality Act 2010 was a landmark piece of legislation that consolidated and strengthened previous laws to protect people from discrimination. One of its key principles is that employers must make reasonable adjustments to remove barriers for employees with disabilities. This has helped countless people access equipment, changes to working practices, or physical modifications to their workspace.
However, while the law was intended to be flexible and adaptable, the lack of a clear definition for ‘reasonable’ has created a patchwork of experiences — and not all of them are positive.
The Problem with ‘Reasonable’
‘Reasonable’ is influenced by many factors: the size of the company, its financial resources, the role in question, and even the personal attitude of the decision-maker. What one HR manager or health and safety lead sees as a minor, low-cost improvement, another might view as an unnecessary expense.
This means that two employees, in similar roles and with identical needs, could receive very different levels of support simply because their employers interpret the word differently. For the individual, this can feel deeply unfair. For the organisation, it can mean losing skilled people who could have thrived with the proper support.
The Human Impact of Subjective Standards
The ambiguity of ‘reasonable’ can have significant human consequences. Employees may feel undervalued or excluded when their requests are denied on grounds they see as arbitrary. Over time, this erodes trust, damages morale, and can lead to increased turnover.
In some cases, employees don’t even request adjustments because they fear being seen as a burden or worry they’ll be told their needs are ‘unreasonable’. This means that issues like deteriorating eyesight or hearing loss often go unaddressed until they have a significant impact on health, safety, and productivity.
Why It Matters to Everyone
This isn’t just about individual rights — it’s about organisational success. Inclusive, accessible workplaces benefit everyone, not just those with a disability. Small changes can lead to better communication, fewer mistakes, improved wellbeing, and higher retention.
When ‘reasonable’ is interpreted too narrowly, employers miss out on these benefits and risk creating a culture where only those who fit a narrow definition of ‘average’ can thrive.
How We Could Improve the Standard
The aim isn’t to criticise the Equality Act, but to evolve it for the realities of 2025 and beyond. We have more technology, more data, and more awareness than ever before — so our approach to adjustments should reflect that.
Here are some steps that could help:
• Develop more explicit sector-specific guidance for what counts as reasonable.
• Create a baseline list of standard adjustments that should almost always be approved.
• Involve people with lived experience in setting and reviewing standards.
• Encourage proactive assessments so adjustments are offered before problems escalate.
The Role of Leaders and Decision-Makers
Ultimately, legislation provides the framework, but leaders decide how it’s applied in practice. HR professionals, health and safety teams, and managers all have the power to interpret ‘reasonable’ in a way that empowers rather than restricts.
By taking a proactive, empathetic, and consistent approach to adjustments, organisations can go beyond compliance and demonstrate a genuine commitment to inclusion.
Conclusion
‘Reasonable’ was always meant to be a flexible, adaptable term — but when flexibility turns into inconsistency, it’s time to talk about change. Updating how we define and apply this standard could remove unnecessary barriers, unlock potential, and create fairer, more productive workplaces.
What’s the most ‘unreasonable’ reasonable adjustment you’ve seen or experienced? And how would you modify the system to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to succeed?
To find out more and make a referral, visit https://visualisetrainingandconsultancy.com/workplace-assessmentsÂ
Â