Reasonable adjustments: an employer's duty to redeploy

The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in Chowdhury v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd offers a helpful reminder of the scope of an employer’s duty to make reasonable adjustments. In particular, it examines whether redeployment into a role for which a disabled employee does not meet the essential criteria is ever required, and provides a reassuring answer for employers.

By way of reminder, reasonable adjustments are changes that must be made at work to remove or reduce a substantial disadvantage related to someone's disability. Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a positive duty to make reasonable adjustments when an employee has a disability. Failure to consider and implement these adjustments can lead to claims of discrimination and unfair dismissal. Further information, including tips for employers, can be found in our blog here.

There is not a prescribed list of reasonable adjustments, with examples ranging from making a place of work more accessible to changing working hours and duties. However, as the recent EAT decision shows, what is 'reasonable' will depend on the circumstances, including whether the adjustment will help, its cost in relation to the employer's resources and its impact on operations.

Chowdhury v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd in the Employment Tribunal

In this case, the claimant worked as a Customer Service Assistant, employed by Network Rail (the employer) at London Bridge station. The claimant suffered from plantar fasciitis, which flared up soon after he started working for Network Rail.

His role was physically demanding, involving patrolling the station, security checks and customer assistance. When his condition flared up, he was assigned to interim help desk duties to make his job more sedentary; however, the claimant remained absent from his job for long periods of time.

He was also placed on the employer's internal redeployment register, but after applying unsuccessfully for three alternative roles, he was eventually dismissed. The claimant brought a claim against the employer in the Employment Tribunal.

The claimant argued that the Employer failed to make reasonable adjustments, namely:

• Redeployment into one of the alternative roles for which he had applied.
• Reassignment to a permanent help desk position and 'bumping' one of his colleagues from that position.
• More time to secure a new role.

The claimant also claimed discrimination arising from a disability, arguing that he had been treated unfavourably because of something arising from his plantar fasciitis.

The Employment Tribunal rejected his claims for the following reasons:

• Reasonable adjustments: it found that the claimant did not meet the essential criteria for the alternative roles that he applied for, and that the redeployment policy did not require waiving core requirements for roles. In addition, the Employer had acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant as opposed to allowing him further time to secure a new role.
• Discrimination arising from disability: it held that the dismissal was a proportionate response to a legitimate aim, in particular, ensuring staff could perform roles and attend work.

The appeal

The claimant appealed the decision to the EAT, questioning, among other grounds, whether the Tribunal had been correct to defer to the employer's view over the claimant's suitability for the alternative roles. He argued that the Tribunal ought to have found that it was unreasonable for the employer to consider some of the criteria for each job 'essential'.

The EAT found that the Tribunal was entitled to decide that the claimant did not have the experience required for some of the roles, finding it was a matter of undisputed fact based on the evidence. The EAT determined the Tribunal was right to have taken this into account when assessing whether a move into that role was a reasonable adjustment. The Tribunal had given appropriate weight to the employer's evidence, but ultimately had independently assessed the reasonableness of the adjustments.

Wider implications of this decision

The EAT's decision gives employers comfort that they are not necessarily required to redeploy disabled employees into roles for which they do not meet the essential criteria. Put simply, reasonable adjustments do not automatically override core job requirements (albeit each case should be assessed on its own facts).

In addition, there is a limit to how long an employer is required to allow an absent employee to try to redeploy into a new role. In this case, the claimant had been off work for an extended period and it was found there had been limited engagement by him in redeployment efforts. It was therefore unclear that delaying his dismissal would achieve anything.

On a practical note, it is essential that employers ensure that they document their considerations and decision-making processes as much as possible. In this case, the employer had documented its efforts to support the claimant's redeployment, which helped in its defence of the claim.

Clear documentation will also help justify which criteria for a role are deemed essential. Employers should keep written records explaining why an employee did not meet those criteria. An Employment Tribunal is entitled to take into account an employer's analysis on this point and a well-documented rationale can make all the difference

For information on when offering a trial period might be a reasonable adjustment, see here.

Many thanks to Zoe Hare, current trainee in the team, for her help in preparing this article.

This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.

© Farrer & Co LLP, November 2025