Home » Employment » Different types of worker » ‘Employment services’: agencies, careers guidance, vocational training etc » Employment services: Technical issues on reasonable adjustment duty

Employment services: Technical issues on reasonable adjustment duty

Disclaimer – please read
This page does not apply outside Great Britain.
Last updated 11th October, 2025.

This page is only for people interested in some difficult technical issues on how the reasonable adjustment duty applies to employment services. In summary, for work experience the normal employment-type duty applies. For all other employment services, the “anticipatory” duty (like for service providers) either applies or may apply.

Summary

  • There are two types of reasonable adjustment duty: Reasonable adjustments by service providers>“Anticipatory” versus individual duty. As regards employment services:
  • Providers of work experience are subject to the normal employment-type reasonable adjustment duty: below Work experience.
    • This is the type of reasonable adjustment duty that applies to most employment situations. It is focused on the individual claimant. It looks at whether that individual is put at a disadvantage, and what adjustments would be reasonable in their particular circumstances.
  • For all other employment services, the reasonable adjustment duty is or may be “anticipatory”.
    • This “anticipatory” type of duty applies to service providers, among others. It is described as “anticipatory”, because the service provider is expected to consider reasonable adjustments even before an individual disabled person presents themself. The duty looks at what adjustments would be reasonable to enable access for people with the relevant kind of disability generally.
  • This anticipatory duty applies to “vocational services”, a sub-category of employment services: below Vocational services. “Vocational services” includes vocational guidance, training for employment, and helping to find or retain employment (and making arrangements for those or for work experience).
  • A similar anticipatory duty may also apply to all other employment services (except work experience), but this is unclear. Below Other employment services.
  • Where the reasonable adjustment duty is anticipatory, there is also likely to be no statutory “ignorance defence” for the employment service provider, ie no statutory defence if the provider did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the disability and disadvantage. However, this does not necessarily mean it is irrelevant what a provider could be expected to know.

“Vocational services”

What are vocational services?

‘Vocational services’, defined in EqA s.56(7), are:

  • provision of training for employment (but not work experience, s.56(7)(a)), or
    • provision of facilities for training for employment (s.56(8));
  • provision of vocational guidance;
  • making arrangements for the provision of training for employment, of work experience (probably), or of vocational guidance;
  • provision of a service for finding employment for persons, or for assisting persons to retain employment.

Exceptions apply for training or guidance –

Making arrangements for work experience

Making arrangements for work experience is probably a “vocational service” (unless excluded by s.56(3)(4)(5)), even though work experience itself is not. On its wording, s.56(7)(a) only excludes work experience from s.55(2)(b), not from s.55(2)(c) on making arrangements. Also EqA Sch 8 para 16 (on the employment-type reasonable adjustment duty) only covers provision of work experience, not making arrangements for it – so there is no reason to exclude making arrangements from “vocational services”.

Anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty applies to vocational services

For these “vocational services”, s.55(7) EqA states that the reasonable adjustment duty for service providers under EqA Part 3 applies. Nevertheless claims go to an employment tribunal. I discuss the duty on service providers at Reasonable adjustments by service providers: rules. Accordingly:

The legal reasoning is that s.55(7) EqA says the reasonable adjustment duty under s.29(7)(a) applies to vocational services. That duty is subject to EqA Sch 2 which says the duty applies if “disabled people generally” are put at a disadvantage (EqA Sch 2 para 2(2)), which is interpreted as meaning it is anticipatory. However claims go to an employment tribunal, because s.55(7) says a failure to comply with this duty in relation to the provision of a vocational service is a contravention of “this Part”, ie EqA Part 5, Work, for the purposes of EqA Part 9 on enforcement.

History

The object of s.55(7) seems to be that there should be no “rowing back” from the anticipatory duty which applied under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA). See below Technical note: History of s.55(7) on vocational services.

Work experience

Distinct rules apply to ‘work experience’ (so far as not excluded from s.55 by the involvement of an education provider). Essentially, the normal employment-type reasonable adjustment duty applies to work experience. So the duty is not anticipatory, and the normal statutory “ignorance defence” is available. See Work experience>If not arranged by an education institution.

Other employment services

What “other employment services”?

“Employment services” other than vocational services and work experience include the following (EqA s.56):

  • provision of a service for supplying employers with persons to do work;
  • provision of a service in pursuance of arrangements made under s.2 Employment and Training Act 1973 (arrangements by government to assist persons to select, train for, obtain and retain employment, or to assist persons to obtain suitable employees), unless also a “vocational service”;
  • provision of a service in pursuance of arrangements made, or a direction given, under s.10 of that Act (careers services), unless also a “vocational service”;
  • the exercise of a function in pursuance of arrangements made under s.2(3) Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 (functions of Scottish Enterprise, and of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, relating to training for employment etc);
  • an assessment related to the conferment of a “relevant qualification” within the meaning of s.53 EqA, except in so far as the assessment is by the qualifications body which confers the qualification (discrimination by the qualifications body would fall within s.53).

Reasonable adjustment duty for these other employment services

Claims go to the employment tribunal. However, the type of reasonable duty that applies here is unclear. The position in effect may be very similar to vocational services, in that:

Both the EqA Explanatory notes and the Employment Code of Practice say this reasonable adjustment duty is anticipatory (below Official guidance), although the courts will not necessarily follow those: as to the Code, see Legal effect of statutory guidance and codes.

Also IDS Disability in the Workplace 2023, paragraph 7.24, considers the implication of the EqA statutory provisions to be that “employment service-providers owe a duty to make reasonable adjustments to the world at large, i.e. any disabled person who might seek to use the service, not just to those who have indicated that they may be interested in the service.” It sees the references in the Explanatory Notes and Code to the duty being anticipatory as supporting that view.

Technical reasoning why reasonable adjustment duty for other employment services may be anticipatory

S.55(6) EqA applies the usual employment reasonable adjustment duty under EqA Sch 8, which is not normally anticipatory.

EqA Sch 8 para 3 says that – except as regards work experience, to which presumably Sch 8 para 2 applies – the reasonable adjustment duty applies to an “interested disabled person”. But Sch 8 para 16 (with para 4) defines “interested disabled person” only in relation to work experience. For other employment services, Sch 8 says nothing about who is an “interested disabled person”.

The argument is that this implies providers of employment services (other than vocational services and work experience) owe the reasonable adjustment duty to the world at large, so it is anticipatory, like the EqA explanatory notes and Employment Code of Practice say.

My comment on whether anticipatory

What is the legal effect of this Sch 8 wording, for employment services? It will be for the courts to decide, if a case arises.

However, this must be a drafting mistake:

  • There is no wording like EqA Sch 2 para 2(2) modifying s.20 to refer to “disabled people generally” being put at a substantial disadvantage. Sch 2 para 2(2) is generally seen as the most important reason why the duty on service providers is anticipatory. On the contrary EqA Sch 8 para 3(2) specifically says that for employment services (except work experience), s.20 is modified to refer to an “interested disabled person” being put at a substantial disadvantage.
  • EqA Sch 8 para 4 tells us to look at the table that follows to determine who is an “interested disabled person”, including for the purpose of EqA Sch 8 para 3(2). However, there seems to be no definition of “interested disabled person” at all, as regards para 3(2). (There is a definition for work experience, but that is excluded from para 3(2)). It looks very much like there was intended to be an “interested disabled person” specified in Sch 8, but it was left out by mistake.
  • If the intention was to make the duty anticipatory, it is difficult to see why this was not done in the same way as for vocational services, above, ie through s.55(7) simply incorporating the duty on service providers.

As a possible alternative to the duty being anticipatory, a court might infer who is an “interested disabled person” within Sch 8 para 3, from the specific definitions Sch 8 gives in other contexts. This is not ideal, but might tie in with the legislature having left a “hole” (lacuna) in the EqA, which the courts are trying to fill. The result should be that the normal employment-type reasonable adjustment duty applies to work experience, focused on the individual claimant.

Ignorance defence?

In respect of these other employment services, there may also be no statutory “ignorance defence” (Knowledge of disability) for the service provider under EqA Sch 8 para 20, ie no statutory defence if the provider did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the disability and disadvantage. This is because Sch 8 para 20 refers to knowledge about an “interested disabled person”. As discussed above, no such person is specified in Sch 8 for employment services (other than work experience).

This does not necessarily mean it is irrelevant what an employment service provider could be expected to know: Knowledge of disability in anticipatory reasonable adjustment claims.

If court infers (above) who is an “interested disabled person“, presumably the statutory “ignorance defence” would apply.

History

Before October 2010 (when the EqA took effect), the reasonable adjustment duty for these services would have been anticipatory, under the DDA’s general rules on provision of services.

Official guidance

The EqA Explanatory Notes say:

“… The duty is an anticipatory duty except for providers of a vocational service, so that in relation to the provision of vocational services, employment service-providers do not need to deal in advance with reasonable adjustments for disabled people”
Paragraph 188 of the Equality Act Explanatory Notes (legislation.gov.uk).

As I’ve described above, the EqA is clear that the reasonable adjustment duty as regards vocational services (such as training for work) is anticipatory.

For employment services other than vocational services and work experience, the duty may be anticipatory as stated in the Notes (and Employment Code, below). However, this has yet to be settled by the courts.

According to the Employment Code of Practice:

11.57 Under the Act, an employment service provider has a duty to make reasonable adjustments, except when providing a vocational service. The duty to make reasonable adjustments is an anticipatory duty.
[Example:….]

11.58 However, the anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments does not apply to vocational training (that is, training for work or work experience), where the duty is the same as in employment.
Employment Code, para 11.57-58

Again, there is an anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty as regards vocational services, including training for work, but not for work experience where the duty is like in employment. The wording in the Code “except when providing a vocational service” is probably taken from s.55(6) EqA, but ignores the fact that s.55(7) imposes a service-provider-type reasonable adjustment duty for vocational services.

Technical note: History of s.55(7) on vocational services

The aim of s.55(7) EqA (above Anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty for vocational services) seems to be that there should be no “rowing back” from the anticipatory duty which applied under the previous Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA): Public Bill Committee 23rd June 2009 col 381.

Before the EqA, the reasonable adjustment duty for vocational services was presumably anticipatory under the DDA, because these were within the rules on service providers generally, in DDA Part 3. For service providers, then as now, the anticipatory duty applied.

However, from late 2004, what the DDA called “employment services” – defined broadly in the same way as “vocational services” in the EqA – were given stronger protection, in order to comply with the Framework Employment Directive. These “employment services” stayed in DDA Part 3, with other services, but the Part 3 rules for them (including the anticipatory duty) were modified by s.21A DDA, from October 2004.

Chapter 11 of the 2004 Employment Code of Practice dealt with the post-2004 rules on employment services (now called vocational services). Para 11.18 of the 2004 Code said the reasonable adjustment duty was anticipatory.

25th anniversary of stammeringlaw, 1999-2024