Reasonable Adjustments Pushback: 5 Common Objections and How HR Can Overcome Them

You’ve done everything right. An employee has disclosed a disability or neurodivergent condition, you’ve arranged a workplace needs assessment or occupational health referral and you know exactly what reasonable adjustmentsneed to be made.

Then someone says no.

It might be IT telling you the software is a security risk. It might be a manager worried about setting a precedent. It might be a finance director questioning the cost. Whatever the reason, you’re stuck in the middle trying to do the right thing for your employee while navigating internal resistance.

If this sounds familiar, you’re not alone. In my experience as a workplace needs assessor and neurodiversity consultant, pushback on reasonable adjustments is one of the most common challenges HR professionals face. And it’s one of the most important to get right because under the Equality Act 2010. The duty to make reasonable adjustments isn’t optional. It’s a legal obligation.

So let me walk you through the five most common objections I hear and, more importantly, how to deal with them.

1. “It’s a Security Risk” - Pushback from IT

This is the one I come across most often, particularly when the recommended adjustment involves software. Many neurodivergent employees benefit enormously from tools like speech-to-text software, text-to-speech readers or browser plug-ins that support focus and comprehension. And many of these tools are cloud-based, which is where IT departments sometimes raise concerns.

Here’s how I approach this. First, if the concern is genuine, there are often alternatives. Dragon NaturallySpeaking, for example, has historically been the go-to dictation software and it runs locally on the machine rather than in the cloud. It’s more expensive, but it removes the security concern entirely. That said, it’s worth exploring whether the risk is as significant as IT believes. Tools like Speechify, which operates as a browser plug-in to read text aloud, offer features that genuinely improve accessibility, including the ability to choose from different voices, which matters more than people realise for someone who needs to process information auditorily.

My second piece of advice: if IT maintains the risk is too great, ask them to document it. Specifically, ask them to explain in writing what the risk is, why it cannot be mitigated and why no alternative solution exists. In my experience this is often where the objection falls apart. When people have to formally justify a blanket “no”, they frequently discover the risk isn’t as significant as they first thought.

From a legal perspective this documentation matters. If a case ever reaches an employment tribunal then you need to be able to demonstrate that either you made the adjustment or there was a genuine, documented reason it wasn’t reasonable. “IT said no” is not a defence.

2. “If I Do This for One Person, Everyone Will Want It”

This one comes up constantly from line managers and I understand the concern. Fairness matters in a team, however reasonable adjustments aren’t about giving someone special treatment, they’re about removing a barrier that exists because of a disability.

There are two ways to respond to this. The first is simple: if the adjustment would genuinely benefit everyone, then why not offer it more widely? Flexible start times, noise-cancelling headphones, written rather than verbal instructions, many adjustments that are recommended for neurodivergent employees actually improve working conditions for the whole team. That’s not a problem. That’s a win.

The second response applies when the adjustment does have a genuine impact on others. Let’s say an employee needs to start at 10am instead of 9am because their medication doesn’t take effect until mid-morning. The phone lines need to be staffed from 9am and this person starting late means someone else has to cover. That’s manageable for one person. If a second person requests the same thing, you look at whether you can accommodate it. If a third asks and you genuinely can’t, then you explain the business reasons why. You deal with each case on its merits.

The point is that you don’t refuse the first adjustment because of a hypothetical future problem. You make the adjustment now and address any further requests as and when they arise. A tribunal is not going to accept “we didn’t make this adjustment because we were worried other people might want it too”.

3. “We Can’t Afford It”

Let me be direct about this one: “we can’t afford it” is a very difficult argument to sustain at a tribunal and most HR professionals already know this.

But the way to address it internally is to reframe the conversation around cost. The adjustment has a price tag, yes. But what’s the cost of not making it? If this employee can’t perform because they’re unsupported then you’re looking at performance management, potential dismissal and recruitment costs, typically estimated at six to nine months’ salary. And if that employee brings a disability discrimination claim, tribunal payouts can run into thousands, plus the cost of defending the case.

For neurodivergent employees specifically the adjustments we’re usually recommending are relatively low cost. We’re talking about software subscriptions, a second monitor, flexible working arrangements or management coaching. Weigh that against the alternative and the numbers speak for themselves.

If the cost genuinely is prohibitive (in smaller organisations with limited resources then this can occasionally be the case) then document the decision, document who made it and document what alternatives were considered. That paper trail is essential.

4. “It Doesn’t Match Our Office Aesthetic”

I’ll admit this one still catches me off guard, but it does come up. An employee needs a particular desk setup, different lighting or permission to use fidget tools and someone objects because it doesn’t fit the look of the office.

There are occasionally legitimate reasons behind an office aesthetic, health and safety considerations around lighting, for example or practical decisions about shared spaces. But more often what I find is that the aesthetic is based on ideas rather than evidence. The “clear desk, clear mind” philosophy is a classic example. It sounds logical but if you have ADHD then a clear desk makes absolutely no difference to what’s happening inside your head. Your mind is still going at full speed regardless of how tidy your workspace is.

The response here is straightforward. If we want this person to thrive, to perform well and stay with the organisation then this is what they need. A tribunal is never going to accept “we didn’t make the adjustment because it didn’t match our office aesthetic”. The cost of losing a good employee or defending a discrimination claim far outweighs any disruption to the décor.

5. “How Do We Know They Really Need It?”

This is perhaps the most sensitive objection and it’s one that needs handling carefully. Nobody in HR should be in the business of medically gatekeeping or deciding who is and isn’t “genuinely” disabled.

The right approach is to take professional advice. Commission a workplace needs assessment from a qualified assessor or get an occupational health referral depending on the nature of the condition and the advice you need. These advisors are the experts. They will tell you what adjustments are appropriate and that recommendation gives you a solid foundation to act on and to defend if challenged.

Beyond that, I’d ask a broader question: if something helps an employee do their job better then why wouldn’t you provide it? Particularly with neurodivergence we’re often talking about small, inexpensive changes that make a significant difference to someone’s productivity and wellbeing. If an adjustment isn’t causing harm to the business or the team then the question shouldn’t be “do they really need it?” It should be “why wouldn’t we?”.

Getting Managers on Board

Underpinning all of these objections is often a lack of understanding. Managers who push back on reasonable adjustments aren’t usually doing it out of malice, they simply haven’t been given the training to understand why these adjustments matter and what their role is in making them work.

That’s why reasonable adjustments and neurodiversity awareness should be a core part of management training, not an afterthought. Managers need to understand not just the legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010 but the practical reality: that small adjustments, made willingly and maintained consistently, can be the difference between an employee who struggles and one who thrives.

And once adjustments are in place, they need to stay in place. One of the patterns I see far too often is managers quietly removing adjustments over time, whether through reorganisation, forgetfulness, or a belief that the employee should have “adjusted by now.” These adjustments aren’t temporary fixes. They’re ongoing support.

If you’d like support with training your managers or HR team on neurodiversity and reasonable adjustments, I’d love to help. You can book a free consultation to talk through what your organisation needs.