How Long Is “Reasonable”?

1d
4 min read

Is there a risk with delay in implementing reasonable adjustments?

The Equality Act 2010 places a clear duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments for employees with disabilities.

What counts as reasonable is one challenge for employers to and a topic we have explored extensively here. Including with valuable expert input from Diana Kloss!

Another, often overlooked challenge for employers is timescale. Specifically, how long do employers have to implement occupational health (OH) recommendations once they receive them?

The current reality in occupational health practice

In practice, work and health interventions are still too often treated as reactive rather than proactive. Occupational health referrals frequently take place late in an individual’s work and health journey. Rather than referrals being triggered by early support needs, they are often left until performance concerns, relationship breakdown, long-term sickness absence, or in some cases employer concern around litigation risk. As a result, OH is often engaged only once difficulties have already escalated. This is a missed opportunity.

Addressing work and health issues upstream is far more efficient and effective. Early referral saves time, cost, and stress for both employer and employee. At Insight Workplace Health, this reality led to the development of a day-one sickness absence service, designed to provide support at the very start of any issues arising at the interface of work and health.

Yet across much of the economy, the reality remains:

Late referrals
And in many cases, no referrals at all where referrals would have been appropriate

This means, by the time reasonable adjustments are recommended, they already appear late in the work and health journey. Both employer and employee have lost valuable time.

Delays increase the risk of sickness absence, disengagement, and breakdown in trust between individuals, teams, and organisations.

The business case for speed in implementing reasonable adjustments

From a business perspective, the case for implementing reasonable adjustments as soon as possible is to improve the relationship between work and health before any further deterioration in health and productivity. In reality, progress can be slow.

For example, using government-funded Access to Work support, organisations and individuals may face:

Waiting lists for assessments
Further delays before recommendations are implemented
Additional waits for equipment to be ordered and supplied

These delays can undermine the effectiveness of reasonable adjustments when they are not implemented on time. This is one reason why Insight Ergonomics evolved a way of working alongside Access to Work. Insight Ergonomics can pick up Access to Work recommendations and implement them at pace, including through supplying vetted ergonomic equipment.

What about the legal case for speed?

There is no fixed statutory timeline for how quickly occupational health assessments must be completed or recommendations implemented. Expectations may vary depending on an employer’s size, resources, and operational context. However, tribunal decisions show that delay matters. Where OH assessments have not been undertaken in a timely way (or at all), or where recommendations remain pending at the point of litigation, tribunals scrutinise this closely.

A recent tribunal decision illustrates an example of an employer ‘sitting’ on recommendations while worker health and productivity deteriorated.

The case concerned BK, a highly experienced cloud technologist with 25 years’ experience in solution architecture and presales roles, employed by information technology company Capgemini.

BK had been diagnosed with ADHD and mixed anxiety and depressive disorder prior to joining the organisation. She had functional difficulties with focus in environments lacking structure or clarity.

She commenced a senior presales role in June 2023 on a six-month probation. Her first probation meeting, where objectives were set, did not take place until seven weeks into the role.

In September 2023, BK was due to deliver a presentation. In the early hours of the morning, she contacted her line manager requesting either a reduction in scope or a postponement, citing difficulty meeting expectations. She was advised to proceed with an overview of all topics and subsequently cancelled the meeting.

Shortly afterwards, BK disclosed that she ADHD to her line manager, explained that medication changes were affecting her ability to meet probation objectives, and asked whether timelines could be extended. She was told additional support would be offered as needed and was signposted to occupational health.

Key timelines:

OH referral initiated late September 2023
Workplace needs assessment completed end October 2023
Report shared with BK in early November 2023, and discussed with HR

This meant:

Around two months between disclosure of ADHD and receipt of the workplace needs assessment
Around one month remaining before the end of probation

BK expressed willingness to engage with recommended adjustments, including workplace coaching for ADHD and neurodiversity-related training. She later went on sickness absence and provided a GP letter confirming her diagnoses and escalating anxiety.

While some adjustments (such as software) were progressed and one coaching session took place, others, including training and further coaching, were not completed. Probation was extended, grievances were raised, and employment was ultimately terminated in early February.

The tribunal’s findings

The tribunal noted that:

The delay of around two months between disclosing ADHD and provision of the workplace needs assessment on 7 November 2023 was unhelpful
Awaiting OH input for guidance in itself was not unfavourable treatment

The tribunal upheld a failure to make reasonable adjustments, including:

Failure of implementation of neurodiversity-related training for colleagues
Supporting BK to complete recommended coaching sessions

The case demonstrates that while some delay may be understandable, ongoing or cumulative delay, particularly once needs are known, carries legal risk. This case is particularly interesting given the time pressured context inherent with a probation period.

Takeaways for employers

Reasonable adjustments do not end with occupational health recommendations.
How quickly implementation follows is important.
Delay can erode the effectiveness of adjustments, worsen health outcomes, and weaken an employer’s legal position.
Recommendations implemented late or left partially implemented may expose organisations to risk.
In work and health, timeliness is valuable to all stakeholders.

Act Fast, Support Your Team

When it comes to reasonable adjustments, speed matters. Delays can reduce the effectiveness of support, increase stress, and create legal risk. At Insight Workplace Health, we help organisations implement occupational health recommendations quickly and efficiently, from assessments to equipment and training.