Do employers have a rational fear of hiring disabled staff? It’s a provocative question—one that surfaced again after UK business leader Sir Charlie Mayfield suggested employers avoid hiring disabled people not out of malice, but because they perceive it as risky. With over 8.7 million people in the UK identifying as disabled and long-term sickness rates rising, this debate touches the heart of workforce inclusion, legislation, and employer responsibility. Are businesses unjustly cautious, or are there structural challenges that need a new approach?

The Truth Behind Employers' Reluctance to Hire Disabled Staff

When Mayfield described employer hesitation as “rational,” he wasn’t defending exclusion—he was naming the problem. Many employers, especially small and mid-sized businesses, fear litigation, rising costs, or disruption due to health-related absences. With rising employment tribunal claims and growing legislation, businesses often view disability accommodations as high-risk obligations. Yet this mindset overlooks an important fact: early intervention and inclusive practices reduce conflict and improve outcomes for both employers and employees.

Mayfield’s review recommended proactive support, not punishment. He argued for a shift from reactive, legalistic frameworks to collaborative problem-solving. This includes recognizing when someone is struggling and providing timely, needs-led support—before a breakdown in trust or performance leads to dismissal or legal action.

The Limits of Current Disability Support Systems

Despite government programs like Access to Work and widespread use of occupational health, the support landscape is deeply fragmented. Delays, backlogs, and unclear guidance leave employers unsure how to proceed—and employees underserved. For example, while Access to Work can provide assistive technology and coaching, it’s now so backlogged that grassroots advocacy groups have emerged to demand reform. Meanwhile, many occupational health providers operate with a conflict of interest—recommending services they also deliver, with little regulation.

The private market for disability support is equally uneven. While some assistive tech vendors and neurodivergent specialists provide vital resources, there’s little oversight or benchmarking to guarantee quality or return on investment. This uncertainty only reinforces employer hesitation and raises real concerns about the cost, fairness, and effectiveness of workplace adjustments.

What a Rational Approach to Disability Inclusion Looks Like

The solution isn’t more fear—it’s better support. Employers need practical, scalable models for making disability inclusion part of normal business operations. This starts with recognizing that adjustments don’t always require formal medical assessments. A needs-led model focuses on what employees need to succeed, regardless of diagnosis. For example, a simple change to lighting, desk setup, or communication style can have a profound impact—and cost little or nothing.

Crucially, adjustments should be context-sensitive. What’s reasonable for a small business might not be for a large one. What’s essential for a safety-critical role may be optional for another. Instead of one-size-fits-all mandates, businesses need flexible frameworks that encourage dialogue between employer and employee, backed by accessible advice and clear accountability.

Moving Forward: From Rational Fear to Rational Inclusion

Disability inclusion is no longer optional—it’s a workforce strategy. As populations age and chronic illness rises globally, employers must prepare for a future where a growing portion of staff will need adjustments. Those who build clear, inclusive pathways today will avoid tribunal risks tomorrow—and benefit from the skills, loyalty, and innovation of disabled professionals.

Mayfield’s comments, while controversial, invite us to move the conversation beyond blame. The fear employers feel is real—but so is the solution: early support, shared responsibility, and strategic planning. Inclusion doesn’t start with law—it starts with leadership.