Mediating Reasonable Adjustments in Higher Education: What Happens When Institutions Struggle After Bristol v Abrahart?
Universities are facing increasing pressure to support disabled students while managing stretched budgets, growing caseloads and limited resources.
But financial pressures do not remove their responsibilities under the Equality Act.
The University of Bristol v Abrahart judgment and subsequent guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) have reinforced an important message: universities must take a proactive approach to identifying and addressing disability-related disadvantage.
For institutions, the challenge is not simply understanding their legal responsibilities. It is ensuring students feel heard, staff communicate effectively and reasonable adjustments are considered before difficulties escalate into disputes.
What did Bristol v Abrahart establish?
Natasha Abrahart was a physics student at the University of Bristol who experienced severe anxiety around oral assessments.
Following her death in 2018, legal proceedings resulted in findings that the University had failed to make reasonable adjustments and had discriminated against her.
The case highlighted the distinction between genuine competence standards and the methods used to assess them. It also reinforced that universities cannot simply rely on disabled students to identify and request every adjustment themselves.
The EHRC subsequently published guidance encouraging universities to review their processes and take a more proactive approach to supporting disabled students.
A diagnosis should not be the starting point
One of the most important messages from the EHRC guidance is that universities should not wait for a formal diagnosis before considering whether a student may need reasonable adjustments.
Where staff are concerned that a student is struggling or failing to engage, they should take steps to understand whether disability may be a factor.
This includes considering what the student says about their health or disability and how they present when communicating with others.
But what happens when the student finds those conversations difficult?
They may feel uncomfortable discussing personal circumstances, struggle to articulate their needs or have lost confidence in the institution.
This is where early facilitation can make a meaningful difference.
A structured, supportive conversation can create a safer environment for students to explain their experiences, while helping academic staff and disability services understand the barriers they face.
The facilitator does not diagnose a disability or determine what adjustments are required. Instead, they help create the conditions for an open, constructive conversation.
Importantly, facilitation should support rather than delay the university's responsibility to act.
Reasonable adjustments do not always require significant resources
Another important point from the EHRC guidance is that many reasonable adjustments have little or no cost implications.
This is particularly relevant when universities are facing financial pressures.
Adjustments might involve providing clearer written instructions, changing communication methods, modifying assessment arrangements or offering a quieter environment.
Sometimes, the biggest obstacle is not the cost of an adjustment but a lack of communication about what is needed.
When departments, disability services and students work together, relatively simple solutions may emerge that substantially reduce disadvantage without significant financial investment.
When university processes become barriers
Universities need policies and procedures to ensure reasonable adjustment decisions are consistent and properly considered.
But processes can become barriers themselves.
A student may be referred between academic departments, disability services and senior decision-makers, with each team waiting for another to act.
Meanwhile, the student continues to experience disadvantage.
The central question can become lost:
What barrier is this student experiencing, and what could reasonably be done to address it?
Early facilitated conversations can help bring the right people together, clarify responsibilities and explore practical options before frustration develops into a formal complaint.
How can mediation support difficult adjustment decisions?
Not every reasonable adjustment is straightforward.
A student may request an alternative assessment method, while the university raises concerns about academic standards. An adjustment may have operational implications, or different departments may disagree about what is feasible.
Facilitative mediation creates space to explore these competing considerations.
It helps the parties understand the student's experience, identify genuine institutional constraints and consider alternative solutions.
The mediator does not decide who is right, determine legal obligations or impose an outcome.
Instead, they support constructive conversations that enable institutions to make better-informed, proportionate and student-centred decisions.
Crucially, mediation does not mean agreeing to every requested adjustment, but neither should practical difficulties automatically end the conversation.
Moving from compliance to meaningful conversations
Bristol v Abrahart provides an opportunity for universities to reconsider how they identify and respond to disability-related disadvantage.
The EHRC guidance reinforces two particularly important lessons:
- Do not wait for a diagnosis. When students are struggling, institutions should take steps to understand whether disability-related barriers exist and what support may be appropriate.
- Do not assume adjustments are expensive. Many effective changes involve little or no additional cost.
Both highlight the importance of early, honest communication.
At Yates Mediation, we combine facilitative mediation with experience in disability, accessibility, education, Equality Act issues and organisational conflict.
We support students and institutions in navigating difficult conversations, understanding competing perspectives and exploring practical, proportionate solutions.
Because when universities are under pressure, avoiding difficult conversations does not make difficult decisions disappear.
Having those conversations earlier creates a better opportunity to support students, preserve relationships and prevent disputes from escalating.