The States agreed that a reasonable adjustment is a necessary and appropriate modification or adjustment, that does not impose a “disproportionate burden”, which a disabled person requires in order to be treated equally.

Just because someone falls within the definition of disability, does not mean that they would be entitled to a reasonable adjustment. Adjustments must be
“appropriate” and “necessary” and not represent a “disproportionate burden”. This ensures that the duty is focussed on the removal of barriers that actually
exist in a way that is sensitive to the needs of employers in terms of proportionality (taking account of available resources). So, if the person’s impairment has no practical effect in the context of the particular employer’s workplace, the employer would not have to make an adjustment as it would not be “necessary”.

The following gives the changes made in the development of the concept of reasonable adjustment locally.

Committee proposed the term “appropriate adjustment”

Request to re-name the duty “reasonable adjustment” and for it to be more similar to the UK due to familiarity.

Appropriate adjustment” to be re-named “reasonable adjustment”. The duty to provide a reasonable adjustment will only apply where a disabled person would suffer a “substantial disadvantage” (i.e. more than minor or trivial disadvantage) without the adjustment.

For education providers and goods or services providers the reasonable adjustment duty will be to disabled people generally, thereby making it proactive (as well as reactive), as in the UK.

Five year delay from commencement before any changes (removal or alteration) required to physical features.