Acas has commissioned the National Centre for Social Research to conduct research into the experiences of disabled employees in the workplace and what might support prevention and resolution of the conflicts which arise. The research was published on 22 September 2026.
This research is aimed at addressing some of the issues raised in Sir Charlie Mayfield’s Keep Britain Working report. A survey conducted by Acas in 2025 showed the prevalence of conflict at work for disabled employees. Research has also been conducted by the Office for Equality and Opportunity about barriers to reasonable adjustments at work.
Acas’s research shows that the disabilities of employees do not give rise to conflict but that the response of the employer is more likely to. Conflict arose most commonly when requests were support had been made by disabled employees and the employer had questioned the need for this support. This was particularly so for employees with so-called invisible disabilities and conditions that fluctuate. It was felt by those who responded to the research that company policy was applied a little too rigidly.
Challenges around requests for reasonable adjustments were a key driver of conflict. This comes as no surprise given that reasonable adjustments are central to the disability provisions of the Equality Act 2010 and are designed to remove barriers for disabled people at work.
Responses to the survey signalled that the issues are:
- Unsympathetic management
- Difficulties securing flexible working
- Delays or refusals over specialist equipment
- Adjustments that were informal or temporary or imposed without consultation, and those that were either handled inconsistently or treated as an inconvenience.
Neurodivergent employee described the impact of their neurodivergence being treated as a misconduct or performance issue rather than something that could be addressed through appropriate workplace support. Disability access training was often felt to focus too much on physical disabilities.
The research demonstrated some further interesting factors: early, informed supported with effective prevention and resolution produced better outcomes. Line managers (and their attitudes) were pivotal in shaping the conflict. Conflict was less likely to escalate where line managers responded promptly and engaged openly. HR involvement was seen as worsening conflict than supporting its resolution with HR often intervening with formal performance management or disciplinary processes rather than to provide support.
None of the findings of this research comes as a surprise to the legal team at didlaw. We routinely intervene in issues arising from failures to make reasonable adjustments and in particular the manner in which HR intervention has caused the relationship to derail. When advising employer clients we advise that early intervention is key but also that open dialogue and ensuring that an overly-rigid reliance on policy is avoided. Fear of HR and Employment Tribunals seem to have driven managers and employers into a situation where a good old-fashioned conversation could very easily address many issues head on. Managers can sometimes be overly tentative. It is not disability discrimination to ask an employee about their condition and what support they need. Keeping the lines of communication open and keeping HR far out of sight both work much better than conflict and eventual litigation.
