Understanding the Importance of Disability Discrimination Law
Disability is one of the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, and it generates more workplace disputes than most of the others combined. Part of the reason is scope: the definition covers a far wider range of conditions than many managers assume, extending well beyond visible impairments to mental health conditions, fluctuating and recurring conditions, and neurodivergent impairments where the statutory test is met. The other reason is that disability is the only protected characteristic that imposes a positive duty on employers. For every other characteristic, the obligation is essentially to avoid treating people worse; for disability, employers must additionally take reasonable steps to remove the disadvantages that workplace arrangements create for disabled employees. That duty, together with a form of discrimination unique to disability that catches unfavourable treatment for reasons connected to a condition rather than the condition itself, means that the most common failures in this area arise from inaction rather than from any deliberate decision. Understanding what triggers the duties, and when, is the practical core of managing this area well.
A Practical Guide to the Statutory Definition
A person is disabled for Equality Act purposes if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
Each element carries a specific meaning. Substantial means more than minor or trivial, which is a considerably lower threshold than the everyday use of the word suggests. Long-term means the effect has lasted at least twelve months, is likely to last at least twelve months, or is likely to last for the rest of the person’s life. Normal day-to-day activities cover ordinary activities carried out regularly, and the assessment looks at the effect on the person’s life generally rather than solely on their ability to perform their job.
Several features of the definition are routinely missed. The effect of medical treatment or other correction is disregarded, so the question is what the effect would be without medication, therapy, or an aid, with the single exception of sight correction by glasses or contact lenses. Conditions with fluctuating or recurring effects are treated as continuing where the effect is likely to recur, so a condition that is currently in remission may still meet the test. Progressive conditions can qualify from the point at which they begin to have some adverse effect, provided that effect is likely to become substantial.
Certain conditions are deemed disabilities from the point of diagnosis without any need to satisfy the general test, including cancer, HIV infection, and multiple sclerosis, along with certified visual impairment. An employee diagnosed with one of these conditions is protected immediately, regardless of current symptoms.
Conditions that commonly meet the test but are frequently not recognised as disabilities by line managers include depression and anxiety disorders, diabetes, epilepsy, chronic fatigue conditions, autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and long Covid where its effects are sufficiently substantial and long-term. There is no exhaustive list, and the question is always whether the statutory test is satisfied on the facts rather than whether the condition sounds serious.
The Six Forms of Disability Discrimination
Disability attracts a wider range of prohibited conduct than any other protected characteristic, and identifying the correct category is what determines both the legal test and the evidence required.
Direct discrimination is treating someone less favourably because of disability itself. It cannot be justified.
Indirect discrimination arises where a provision, criterion, or practice applied generally puts disabled people at a particular disadvantage and cannot be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. A requirement that all staff work a late shift on a fixed day, or attend the office five days a week, may disadvantage employees whose conditions involve fatigue or scheduled treatment.
Discrimination arising from disability is unique to this characteristic and is the provision most often engaged in practice. It occurs where an employee is treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability, rather than because of the disability itself. Dismissing or disciplining an employee for absence that is disability-related, downgrading a performance rating for output affected by a condition, or applying a sickness trigger to disability-related absence, all fall within it. Two features are important: the employer must know or be reasonably expected to know about the disability, and the treatment can be defended if the employer shows it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Failure to make reasonable adjustments arises where the employer fails to take reasonable steps to remove a substantial disadvantage created by a provision, criterion or practice, a physical feature of the premises, or the absence of an auxiliary aid.
Harassment covers unwanted conduct related to disability that violates dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment, including remarks about a condition made as humour.
Victimisation covers detrimental treatment because an employee has complained about discrimination or supported another person’s complaint.
The Duty to Make Reasonable Adjustments
The reasonable adjustments duty is triggered when the employer knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, both that the employee is disabled and that they are placed at a substantial disadvantage. Constructive knowledge matters as much as actual knowledge: an employer that failed to make enquiries a reasonable employer would have made cannot rely on not having been formally told.
This has a direct practical consequence. Where an employee’s performance or attendance changes markedly, where they mention a health condition informally, or where occupational health or a GP note indicates an underlying issue, the employer is on notice that enquiry is warranted. Waiting for a formal disclosure that names a condition and requests an adjustment is not sufficient.
Adjustments commonly made include changes to duties or targets, flexible or hybrid working, adjusted start and finish times, additional or longer breaks, a quieter or differently configured workspace, assistive technology such as speech recognition or ergonomic equipment, phased returns to work, adjusting absence management triggers to discount disability-related absence, reallocating minor duties that present particular difficulty, providing instructions in writing, and offering additional supervision or training. Adjustments to recruitment and assessment processes also fall within the duty.
What is reasonable depends on the effectiveness of the adjustment in removing the disadvantage, its practicability, the cost and disruption involved, and the employer’s size and resources. Larger and better-resourced employers are expected to do more. The cost of an adjustment cannot be passed to the employee, and the Access to Work scheme provides government funding towards certain adjustment costs, which is worth exploring before concluding that a measure is unaffordable.
The most defensible position is built through a documented process rather than outcome alone. An employer that considered a request, sought appropriate information, explored alternatives, explained its reasoning, and recorded that reasoning is well placed even where it declined a specific adjustment. An employer that simply did not respond is not.
Absence Management and Capability
Absence and capability processes are where disability issues most frequently crystallise, and where the interaction between ordinary management practice and the Equality Act requires the most care.
Applying standard absence triggers to disability-related absence, without adjustment, is a paradigm example of discrimination arising from disability. This does not mean disability-related absence can never be managed, but it does mean the employer must consider adjusting the trigger point, discounting disability-related absence, or otherwise modifying the process, and must be able to justify the approach taken as proportionate.
Capability processes require the same discipline. Where performance is affected by a disability, the question is whether adjustments have been properly considered and implemented before performance is assessed. A capability process that proceeds without addressing outstanding adjustment requests, or that disregards medical evidence about what the employee can reasonably achieve, is difficult to defend.
Dismissal on capability grounds where an employee is disabled remains lawful in principle, but requires the employer to have obtained proper medical evidence, considered all reasonable adjustments including redeployment, consulted the employee properly, and to be able to demonstrate that dismissal was a proportionate response. The overlap here is important: such a dismissal can give rise to an unfair dismissal claim and a discrimination claim simultaneously, and the tests are different. Unfair dismissal examines the fairness of the reason and the process, and requires two years’ service. Discrimination examines the treatment against the Equality Act, requires no qualifying service, and carries no cap on compensation.
Redundancy Selection
Redundancy exercises create specific disability risk through selection criteria. Scoring attendance without discounting disability-related absence, or scoring performance across a period when adjustments were outstanding, imports disability-related disadvantage into the selection. Criteria that reward attributes affected by an employee’s condition, without adjustment, create the same problem.
The corrective is to identify disabled employees within the pool at the outset, review the criteria for disability impact before scoring begins, and adjust the scoring approach where required, documenting the adjustment and its rationale. The reasonable adjustments duty applies to the redundancy process itself, not only to the working arrangements it may end.
Occupational Health
Occupational health advice is a valuable tool and a frequent source of error, usually because it is treated as either a formality or a decision-maker.
A referral should ask specific, functional questions: what the employee can and cannot do, what adjustments would help, how long the effects are likely to persist, and whether the condition is likely to meet the statutory definition. A report that supplies only a diagnosis is of limited use, and a referral that asks only whether the employee is fit for work will produce an answer that does not help the employer discharge its duties.
The employer retains the decision. Occupational health advises; it does not determine whether an adjustment is reasonable or whether an employee is disabled in law. An employer that follows an occupational health recommendation without applying its own judgement, or that ignores one without explanation, is exposed either way.
Consent is required to obtain a medical report, and where a report is sought from a doctor responsible for the employee’s clinical care, the employee has statutory rights to see it before it is provided and to request amendments. Where an employee disputes the content of an occupational health report, the appropriate response is to seek clarification or further evidence rather than to proceed on a contested basis.
Recruitment and Health Questions
The Equality Act restricts health and disability questions before a job offer is made. An employer must not ask about health or disability before offering work, whether conditionally or unconditionally, except for limited specified purposes. Those include establishing whether adjustments are needed for the assessment process itself, monitoring diversity on an anonymised basis, taking positive action, establishing that an applicant has a disability where having one is an occupational requirement, and vetting for national security.
The practical implication is that standard application forms and interview scripts should be reviewed to ensure they do not ask about sickness absence history, general health, or disability before the offer stage. Asking a prohibited question does not by itself create liability, but it provides strong evidential support for a subsequent claim that a rejection was disability-related, and it shifts the practical burden onto the employer to explain the decision.
Handling Complaints and Claims Exposure
Where an employee raises a disability-related concern, prompt and properly documented handling frequently resolves it. Many complaints originate in delay rather than refusal, and an adjustment request that has simply not been answered for several months is both a likely breach and an entirely avoidable one.
Employees bringing a tribunal claim must first notify ACAS for early conciliation, and the limitation period is normally three months less one day from the act complained of or the last act in a continuing series, subject to the pause during conciliation. Where a failure to make adjustments is ongoing, the limitation analysis can be more complex than it first appears, which is one reason unresolved requests should not be allowed to sit.
Remedies include compensation for financial loss covering earnings, benefits and pension, compensation for injury to feelings assessed against established bands, interest, and in some cases recommendations. Compensation in discrimination claims is uncapped, which makes the exposure materially different from an ordinary unfair dismissal claim and worth understanding when assessing risk.
Building a Reliable Approach
The organisations that manage disability well tend to share the same characteristics: managers who recognise when a duty may have been triggered and know to escalate rather than proceed, a clear and quick route for adjustment requests with a defined response timescale, occupational health used properly and questioned where necessary, absence and capability processes that build in disability considerations rather than bolting them on, and records that show what was considered and why.
None of this requires specialist legal knowledge at the point of first contact. What it requires is that the manager receiving the first indication of a health condition knows that something has changed and knows what to do next, because in most of the cases that go wrong, the failure happened at exactly that moment.
IRIS Software Group
Award winning software and solutions for the businesses of the future
Discover why more than 100,000 customers across 135 countries trust IRIS Software Group to manage core business operations