The recent case of Cordell v FCO held that there can be a tipping point with regard to the cost of the reasonable adjustment being too high and the continued obligation to provide it.
This is a very specific situation with a lot of money at stake and it runs along these lines... Ms Cordell worked for the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office ("FCO") and is profoundly deaf. Her working life is achieved through the support of lip speakers. She was offered a role that would move her to Astana (that's the capital of Kazakhstan by the way) but it was retracted because the cost of the lip speaker support she needed would be £300,000. Ms Cordell complained of discrimination as the FCO were more than happy to offer her £25,000 per child, per annum for school fees (we don't know how many children she has but I doubt it's 12). Unsurprisingly her claim failed at the Tribunal and at appeal.
It was decided at the EAT that the job was withdrawn, not through discrimination, but because of cost and on therefore could not be discriminatory. The Tribunal's consideration of the cost of lip speakers in the context of the FCO's total budget for reasonable adjustments and the total cost of embassy staff was legitimate, and what the FCO was prepared to spend on school fees was relevant but not determinative.
Comments