Between 2026 and 2027, the UK is rolling out some of the most significant employment law reforms in decades. These changes sit under the Employment Rights Act reforms and related legislation.

On the surface, many of these reforms apply to everyone. But in practice, they matter disproportionately to disabled and neurodivergent workers. Not because they introduce new disability rights, but because they change when protections apply, how decisions must be justified, and who carries the burden when things go wrong.

This article explains what is changing, what is not, and why these reforms matter, particularly if you are disabled or neurodivergent at work.

What is changing, and what is not

First, an important clarification.

The Employment Rights Act reforms do not replace or rewrite disability discrimination law. The duty to make reasonable adjustments still sits under the Equality Act 2010. That framework remains unchanged.

What has changed is the wider employment landscape around it. Workers are gaining earlier access to core protections, and employers are being asked to justify decisions more clearly. Enforcement is slowly shifting away from purely individual burden.

For disabled and neurodivergent workers, this matters. Many of the risks at work arise early, particularly during probation, onboarding, periods of sickness, and discussions about flexibility. These reforms land exactly at those points.

Flexible working is becoming harder to dismiss casually

The right to request flexible working from day one is already law. What is changing from 2027 is how refusals work.

Employers will still be able to refuse flexible working requests, but they will only be able to do so if the refusal is reasonable on one or more of the permitted statutory grounds. Crucially, they will have to explain why the refusal is reasonable.

This shifts flexible working away from a box-ticking exercise.

For disabled and neurodivergent workers, flexible working is often a functional support rather than a lifestyle preference. Adjusted hours, remote working, predictable schedules, and reduced sensory load can be essential to accessing and sustaining work. These needs frequently sit at the overlap between flexible working and reasonable adjustments.

Although flexible working arrangements can form part of a reasonable adjustment, they are governed through a different legal route. Increased scrutiny of flexible working refusals, therefore, creates a clearer evidential trail, which may support Equality Act arguments where a refusal undermines access to work.

It does not guarantee approval, but it raises the standard of decision-making.

Statutory Sick Pay is changing its framework

Statutory Sick Pay operates as a legal minimum rather than a guaranteed workplace benefit. While some employers offer contractual sick pay, coverage is uneven and often limited, particularly during probation or in part-time, agency, and lower-paid roles. Where contractual sick pay does not apply or has been exhausted, Statutory Sick Pay is the fallback.

Under the current framework, SSP is not paid for the first qualifying days of sickness absence. Payment only begins after unpaid waiting days, and workers earning below a minimum weekly threshold are excluded altogether. As a result, even brief periods of sickness can lead to immediate loss of income.

From April 2026, this framework will change. Statutory Sick Pay will be payable from the first qualifying day of sickness, and the Lower Earnings Limit will be removed. This means sickness absence will no longer begin with unpaid waiting days, and workers with low or irregular earnings will no longer be automatically excluded.

This alters how sickness absence interacts with workplace attendance systems. Previously, unpaid waiting days and eligibility rules meant that short periods of sickness could trigger both income loss and attendance management, particularly in roles with insecure hours or limited contractual protections.

Sickness absence for disabled and neurodivergent workers may be continuous, intermittent, or variable over time. Paying SSP from the first day of sickness reduces the financial penalty attached to short periods of absence and lowers the likelihood that health-related time off escalates into formal attendance or disciplinary processes. This is especially significant in roles where statutory sick pay is relied on once contractual provisions are unavailable or have run out.

Earlier unfair dismissal protection changes post-probation risk

From January 2027, the qualifying period for bringing an unfair dismissal claim will reduce from two years to six months, and the statutory cap on compensation will be removed.

In many workplaces, probation periods already last around six months. Under the previous framework, unfair dismissal protection did not apply until long after probation had ended, creating an extended period in which dismissal carried limited legal risk, provided discrimination was not alleged.

This gap shaped behaviour. Many workers delayed disclosure, adjustment requests, or conversations about working practices until after probation, while still remaining vulnerable to dismissal. For disabled and neurodivergent workers in particular, this often meant navigating ongoing adjustment identification and performance expectations without meaningful protection.

Aligning unfair dismissal protection with the typical end of probation reduces that exposure. Once probation has concluded, employers will be required to evidence fair process and objective reasoning if dismissal is contemplated. While this does not remove all risk, it lowers the structural disincentive to disclose or request changes to working practices after probation.

In practice, this creates more space for adjustment discussions to take place without the same level of fear that previously characterised the post-probation period.

Whistleblowing and harassment protections matter here too

From April 2026, whistleblowing protections will be strengthened to cover a wider range of workplace disclosures, including reports connected to sexual harassment. Later in 2026, employers will also be subject to stronger duties to prevent and respond to workplace harassment, including clearer expectations around reasonable preventative steps.

While these changes are not framed around disability, they shape how concerns are raised, recorded, and handled within workplace systems.

Research from the Trades Union Congress indicates that close to four in ten disabled workers report experiencing bullying, discrimination, or harassment at work. Separate research from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has found that around one in five neurodivergent employees report experiencing harassment or discrimination related to their neurodivergence.

In practice, concerns about treatment, access, or working practices are often raised through internal complaints, grievance procedures, or informal escalation rather than as formal discrimination claims. Where communication differences, distress, or persistence are involved, these concerns have historically been vulnerable to reframing as conduct or performance issues rather than substantive workplace problems.

The 2026 reforms increase the procedural and legal consequences attached to how employers respond to such concerns. They place greater emphasis on documentation, justification, and consistency, and reduce the scope for issues to be dismissed informally or absorbed into routine management processes without scrutiny. While these protections do not prevent mistreatment from occurring, they increase the evidential value of internal reporting and narrow the space for retaliation to be obscured.

What disabled and neurodivergent workers should take from this

These reforms do not eliminate workplace inequality, and they do not remove the need to rely on existing discrimination law. What they change is timing.

Earlier access to protection means earlier leverage. Clearer justification requirements create stronger evidential records. Reforms to sick pay reduce the financial pressure attached to managing health at work. Taken together, these shifts narrow the period in which workers are most exposed and least protected.

For disabled and neurodivergent workers, this places greater weight on early documentation and clarity. Adjustment requests are most effective when they are linked to functional need rather than diagnosis. Consultation processes and refusal reasons should be recorded. It also remains important to understand which legal route is being used and why. Flexible working, reasonable adjustments, and unfair dismissal operate differently, even where they intersect.

This is where practical support matters. Understanding the law is one thing. Applying it in real workplaces, with real power imbalances and incomplete information, is another. Our Reasonable Adjustments Guide breaks down how to identify adjustments, frame requests, and respond to pushback in line with current law. Our Resource Centre brings together plain-English explanations, templates, and reference tools to support disabled and neurodivergent workers navigating these processes over time.

The law remains imperfect. However, from 2026 onwards, the point at which workers are most vulnerable is no longer quite as structurally unprotected as it once was. Having the right information, documentation, and tools in place early makes that shift more usable in practice.