Could AI Be a Reasonable Adjustment at Work? How Artificial Intelligence Could Support Disabled Employees

Written by Editor

Disclaimer: This article is for general information and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, employment, medical or professional advice. Reasonable adjustments are assessed according to individual circumstances, and not every AI tool will be suitable, necessary or legally required in every workplace. Employees and employers should seek appropriate professional or legal advice where necessary.

Artificial Intelligence Is Becoming More Than a Productivity Tool

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used as assistive technology in the workplace. With Defra now making Microsoft Copilot licences available as a reasonable adjustment for some disabled and neurodivergent staff, could AI become part of an employer’s duties under the Equality Act 2010?

Artificial intelligence is often discussed in terms of productivity, automation and the future of employment. However, for some disabled and neurodivergent workers, AI can perform another important role: assistive technology.

AI-powered software can help people draft and structure documents, summarise lengthy information, convert speech into text, explain complex language, organise tasks, generate captions, proofread written work and reduce the cognitive load involved in repetitive administrative tasks.

For someone experiencing barriers because of dyslexia, ADHD, visual impairment, mobility limitations, fatigue or another disability, such technology could make the difference between struggling with a workplace process and being able to participate effectively.

That raises an increasingly important legal question:

Could access to an AI tool itself amount to a reasonable adjustment?

In some circumstances, the answer may be yes.

Defra Is Already Treating AI as a Reasonable Adjustment

A significant example emerged from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra).

On 9 September 2026, Defra published the experience of Environment Agency employee Zoe Wilson, explaining how Microsoft Copilot had supported her at work.

Defra said that following targeted trials and roll-outs beginning in 2023, the department identified meaningful benefits for colleagues who were neurodivergent, disabled or had other accessibility requirements. It subsequently made full Microsoft Copilot licences available as a reasonable adjustment earlier in 2026.

Wilson, who has dyslexia, described Copilot as effectively being a form of assistive technology. Rather than replacing her knowledge or creativity, it helped reduce barriers associated with processing and producing written information, allowing her to concentrate more on the substance of her work.

This distinction is important.

AI does not necessarily have to do somebody’s job for them to constitute useful workplace support.

It may simply remove a barrier that makes doing the job unnecessarily difficult.

What Does the Equality Act 2010 Say?

Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where a disabled person would otherwise be placed at a substantial disadvantage.

Government guidance provides examples including changing working arrangements, making physical workplace alterations and supplying specialist equipment.

The duty can extend beyond traditional equipment such as ergonomic keyboards, adapted desks or screen readers. What matters is the barrier experienced by the individual and whether a reasonable step can be taken to remove or reduce that disadvantage.

This means the legislation does not need to contain the words “artificial intelligence” for AI potentially to be considered.

Technology evolves much faster than legislation.

A reasonable adjustment might therefore involve software just as readily as it could involve hardware, altered working hours or a different method of completing a task.

AI Is Not Automatically a Reasonable Adjustment

There is an important qualification.

The fact that Defra provides Copilot as a reasonable adjustment does not mean every disabled employee automatically has a legal entitlement to Microsoft Copilot, ChatGPT or any other particular AI service.

Reasonable adjustments are individual.

Factors may include:

The particular disadvantage the employee experiences;
Whether the AI tool would meaningfully remove or reduce that disadvantage;
The practicality and effectiveness of the adjustment;
Cost and available resources;
Information security and confidentiality requirements;
Whether another adjustment could achieve the same result; and
The nature and size of the employer.

An employee requesting AI assistance would therefore be better off explaining what barrier they experience and how the technology would help overcome it, rather than merely requesting AI because it is useful.

How AI Could Support Disabled and Neurodivergent Employees

The potential applications are extensive.

Dyslexia

Generative AI can help structure written material, check spelling and grammar, simplify dense documents and reorganise ideas.

It can allow an employee to concentrate on their expertise rather than spending disproportionate amounts of time dealing with written presentation.

Acas specifically recognises that neurodivergence can require workplace adjustments and notes that dyslexia, ADHD, autism and dyspraxia are among commonly recognised forms of neurodivergence.

ADHD

AI could assist with breaking complex projects into smaller steps, preparing schedules, extracting action points from lengthy documents and organising information.

The important point is not to assume that everyone with ADHD requires the same assistance. Adjustments should always be personalised.

Visual Impairments

AI tools increasingly provide image descriptions, document interpretation, text-to-speech integration and conversational interfaces that can make information easier to navigate.

Mobility and Dexterity Impairments

Voice-controlled AI interfaces could reduce the amount of typing, clicking or physical computer interaction required.

Fatigue and Energy-Limiting Conditions

An employee who experiences significant fatigue may find summarisation, transcription or document-drafting tools reduce repetitive tasks and conserve energy for the parts of their work requiring specialist human judgement.

Mental Health Conditions

Where a mental health condition meets the legal definition of disability, reasonable adjustments may also apply.

AI might assist some individuals with organisation, preparing written communication or reducing certain administrative pressures, although technology should never be presented as a substitute for appropriate human support or healthcare.

AI Should Enhance Ability, Not Replace It

One of the most important messages from the Defra example is that AI can be viewed as augmentation rather than replacement.

A calculator does not remove someone’s mathematical knowledge.
A wheelchair does not replace someone’s independence.
A screen reader does not replace someone’s intelligence.
Speech-to-text software does not replace someone’s ideas.

Similarly, an AI system used appropriately can help a disabled person express knowledge, organise information or overcome a particular barrier without taking ownership of their expertise.

The employee remains the human decision-maker.

This is particularly important as workplaces debate whether the use of AI somehow represents “cheating”.

If a technology removes disability-related disadvantage and allows an employee to demonstrate their actual ability, preventing its use without considering reasonable adjustments could raise very different questions.

Could Refusing AI Amount to Disability Discrimination?

Potentially, but this would depend heavily on the circumstances.

Acas states that employers must make reasonable adjustments where they know, or could reasonably be expected to know, that someone is disabled. Employers should work with disabled staff to understand the barriers they face and determine appropriate adjustments.

Consequently, if an employee explains that a particular technology would substantially reduce a disability-related disadvantage, an employer should not necessarily dismiss the request simply because the technology happens to use artificial intelligence.

They should consider the request properly.

Whether refusing it would amount to unlawful discrimination would ultimately depend on factors including whether the requested adjustment was reasonable and the particular facts of the case.

Employers Also Need to Consider AI That Creates Barriers

There is another side to this issue.

AI can remove barriers, but badly designed AI can also create them.

The UK Government’s guidance on responsible AI recruitment specifically warns employers to consider reasonable adjustments when using AI-powered recruitment systems.

It states that where an AI recruitment process substantially disadvantages a disabled applicant, adjustments should be considered. In some cases, if the disadvantage cannot otherwise be removed, this could even require removing the AI system from that person’s recruitment process and providing an alternative method.

This creates an interesting legal contrast:

For one disabled person, AI might be the reasonable adjustment. For another, removing AI might be the reasonable adjustment.

Accessibility can never be one-size-fits-all.

Employers Must Not Forget Privacy, Security and Human Oversight

Allowing AI at work also raises legitimate concerns.

Employees should not upload confidential client information, commercially sensitive material, personal data or protected information into unauthorised AI systems.

Employers considering AI as an adjustment therefore need appropriate policies covering:

Data protection: What information can the system process?

Confidentiality: Could commercially sensitive or personal information leave the organisation?

Accuracy: Who checks AI-generated material for errors or hallucinations?

Human oversight: Which decisions must remain with a human?

Accessibility: Is the AI system itself usable by the disabled employee?

Training: Does the employee know how to use the technology safely and effectively?

An adjustment should remove one barrier without inadvertently creating another.

An Employee Could Ask for AI as a Reasonable Adjustment

A disabled employee who believes AI would help them could raise the issue with their employer.

They might explain:

“Because of my disability, I experience substantial difficulty with [specific workplace barrier]. I would like the organisation to consider access to [technology/tool] as a reasonable adjustment because it would help me [explain how it removes or reduces the disadvantage].”

The emphasis should be on the disadvantage and the solution.

Acas recommends that employees and employers discuss adjustment requirements together, allowing the employee to explain the problem and the employer to explore how it can be addressed.

Reasonable Adjustments Should Enable Equality, Not Give an “Advantage”

One misconception surrounding workplace adjustments is that disabled people are somehow receiving preferential treatment.

Reasonable adjustments exist precisely because treating everyone identically can sometimes produce inequality.

If one employee can read and process a lengthy document in thirty minutes while another requires several hours because of a disability, providing suitable assistive technology is not giving that employee an unfair advantage.

It is attempting to reduce the disadvantage.

Equality does not necessarily mean giving everyone exactly the same tools.

Sometimes equality means giving someone the additional tool they need to reach the same starting line.

The Disabled Entrepreneur Perspective

At Disabled Entrepreneur, we have repeatedly explored how technology can remove barriers to employment, entrepreneurship and education.

Artificial intelligence has considerable potential to help disabled people work independently, establish businesses, communicate, conduct research and participate in employment in ways that may previously have been inaccessible.

However, inclusion must remain centred on the individual.

Disabled employees should not be forced to use AI simply because an employer considers it convenient, just as they should not automatically be prevented from using AI where it could constitute an effective reasonable adjustment.

The question should always be:

“What barrier does this individual face, and what can reasonably be done to remove it?”

Sometimes the answer may be flexible hours.

Sometimes it may be home working.

Sometimes it may be specialist hardware.

And increasingly, the answer may be artificial intelligence.

Conclusion

Defra’s decision to make Microsoft Copilot licences available as a reasonable adjustment represents an interesting development in the relationship between disability rights and artificial intelligence.

It demonstrates that AI is no longer merely being considered as workplace automation. In some organisations, it is already functioning as assistive technology.

The Equality Act 2010 deliberately focuses on disadvantage and reasonable steps rather than prescribing an exhaustive list of permitted technologies. This allows workplace adjustments to evolve alongside society and technology.

Not every request for an AI tool will necessarily be reasonable, and employers remain entitled to consider effectiveness, security, cost and individual circumstances.

Nevertheless, employers should be cautious about dismissing AI-assisted working merely because it is new.

For some disabled and neurodivergent people, AI could remove barriers that have existed for decades.

The future discussion should therefore not simply ask:

“Should employees be allowed to use AI?”

Perhaps a more inclusive question is:

“Could preventing a disabled employee from using appropriate AI technology prevent them from reaching their full potential?”