Written Evidence from Emma Vogelmann [FWD0034]

Executive Summary

1. Flexible working and remote working have improved employment access for many disabled people, but they have not fundamentally addressed wider structural barriers relating to workplace culture, recruitment, progression, employer attitudes, and inconsistent implementation of reasonable adjustments.
2. This submission argues that flexible working should be understood as an equality issue rather than a workplace perk or employee benefit. For many disabled workers, remote or hybrid working arrangements are essential to sustaining employment, managing health conditions, reducing fatigue, navigating inaccessible transport systems, and participating equitably in the workplace.
3. The evidence gathered for this submission suggests that many disabled workers continue to experience flexible working arrangements as conditional, insecure, and dependent on managerial discretion rather than embedded workplace practice.
4. Contributors repeatedly described concerns regarding return-to-office mandates, rigid attendance expectations, assumptions around productivity and visibility, barriers to career progression, and difficulties securing or maintaining reasonable adjustments.
5. Contributors also highlighted the cumulative burden created by inaccessible transport, fluctuating conditions, caring responsibilities, repeated disclosure of intimate health information, and workplace cultures that continue to prioritise physical presence over outcomes and contribution.
6. This submission recommends:

a)      requiring employers to clearly justify mandatory office attendance requirements;

b)      strengthening transparency and accountability where remote or hybrid working requests are refused;

c)      improving access to reconsideration or appeal processes;

d)      improving employer understanding of reasonable adjustments and inclusive workplace culture; and

e)      ensuring progression opportunities are not unfairly linked to physical visibility or attendance.

About the Author

7. I am submitting this evidence as a disabled policy and public affairs professional and founder of The Wheelchair Activist. My evidence draws on both lived experience and professional experience working in policy, campaigning, public affairs, and organisational leadership.
8. In preparing this submission, I gathered experiences from disabled women working across multiple sectors regarding flexible working, remote work, workplace accessibility, and employer attitudes towards reasonable adjustments. I sincerely thank them for their trust in me and for allowing me to share their stories.
9. I chose to focus specifically on the experiences of disabled women because disabled women are often underrepresented both within wider workplace policy discussions and within public conversations about disability. Disability advocacy spaces, leadership positions, and public policy debates can still be disproportionately shaped by male perspectives and experiences.
10. Disabled women may also experience additional and intersecting barriers relating to gender inequality, caring responsibilities, lower average earnings, workplace discrimination, and assumptions regarding competence, reliability, or commitment. An intersectional approach is therefore essential when examining the realities of flexible working and employment access. References to disabled women within this submission are inclusive of trans disabled women.

Key Concerns and Recommendations

Key Concerns

11. Flexible working has improved employment access for many disabled people, but it has not fundamentally addressed wider structural barriers within workplace culture, recruitment, progression, and employer attitudes towards disability.
12. Disabled workers continue to experience flexible and remote working as conditional rather than embedded. Many still feel pressure to justify flexibility requests and manage perceptions around commitment and productivity.
13. The increase in return-to-office mandates risks reversing some of the employment gains made during and after the Covid-19 pandemic. This is particularly concerning given that many employers previously demonstrated that remote and hybrid working arrangements were operationally possible.
14. Mandatory office attendance requirements can disproportionately disadvantage disabled workers due to inaccessible transport, fatigue, pain, cumulative physical strain, inaccessible workplaces, and difficulties arranging care and support.
15. There remains widespread inconsistency in employer understanding of reasonable adjustments and flexible working obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
16. Disabled women may face additional barriers due to caring responsibilities, lower average earnings, and wider gender inequalities within the workplace.

Key Recommendations

17. Employers should be required to clearly justify mandatory office attendance requirements, particularly where remote or hybrid working arrangements have previously been shown to be effective.
18. Where a disabled employee requests remote or hybrid working as a reasonable adjustment, employers should be required to provide clear written justification if refusing the request.
19. Disabled workers should have access to a clearer and more accessible reconsideration or appeal process where flexible working requests are refused.
20. Employers should take a collaborative and individualised approach to flexible working arrangements, recognising that different employees may work best in different ways.
21. Greater guidance and education are needed to improve employer understanding of disability, reasonable adjustments, and inclusive flexible working practices.

Flexible Working Has Improved Access But Not Equality

22. According to the Office for National Statistics, disabled people continue to experience significantly lower employment rates than non-disabled people. Despite increased acceptance of flexible working since the Covid-19 pandemic, the disability employment gap remains substantial.

Source: Office for National Statistics, Labour market status of disabled people.

23. Research published by the Work Foundation at Lancaster University found that 85% of disabled workers surveyed considered remote or hybrid working important or essential when looking for a new role, while remote vacancies have declined significantly in recent years.

Source: Work Foundation at Lancaster University, Beyond the Office? and subsequent flexible working research.

24. This creates increasing challenges for disabled workers seeking employment arrangements that allow them to participate sustainably in work.
25. Flexible working and remote working are not interchangeable. Some disabled workers may benefit from flexibility around hours, breaks, or working patterns while still attending a physical workplace. Others may specifically require remote working due to barriers relating to transport, fatigue, pain, workplace accessibility, or support needs.
26. Flexible working and remote working have been essential in enabling many disabled people to enter, remain in, and progress within employment. For many disabled workers, this is not a matter of preference or convenience, but of equal access.
27. Flexible working is essential for me to remain employed full-time. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, I commuted three to four days each week. The commute itself was exhausting and significantly affected my energy levels, pain, and fatigue before the working day had even begun.
28. For many disabled people, the working day begins long before arriving at work. Time and energy may already have been spent navigating inaccessible transport, unreliable assistance, pain management, or arranging support.
29. After graduating from university, I made the difficult decision to stop pursuing primarily office-based full-time roles because I knew that I could not physically sustain the level of commuting required without significant rest periods. This substantially limited my employment options and earning potential.
30. During the pandemic, many employers demonstrated that remote and hybrid working arrangements were operationally possible across a wide range of sectors. However, despite disabled people advocating for greater flexibility for many years before Covid-19, there is now increasing pressure for employees to return to the office.
31. This creates a concerning contradiction. Flexible working arrangements that were previously considered impossible were implemented rapidly when required. Disabled workers are now witnessing some of those arrangements being withdrawn despite their proven role in supporting employment access and retention.
32. Flexible working has improved access for many disabled workers, but it has not fundamentally changed workplace cultures that continue to prioritise physical presence and traditional working patterns.
33. There is a significant risk that increasingly rigid attendance requirements will push some disabled people out of the workforce entirely, or prevent disabled people from pursuing roles aligned with their skills, education, and ambitions.

Flexible Working, Workplace Culture, and Employer Expectations

34. Research published by the Trades Union Congress found that many disabled workers experience long delays in receiving reasonable adjustments, while others receive only partial implementation of agreed support measures. This demonstrates that legal protections alone are insufficient without effective workplace culture and enforcement.

Source: Trades Union Congress, Disabled Workers’ Access to Reasonable Adjustments.

35. These issues are not limited to one sector or type of impairment. Contributors to this submission described barriers relating to mobility impairments, neurodivergence, chronic pain, caring responsibilities, inaccessible workplace environments, and fluctuating conditions.
36. Many disabled workers continue to experience flexible working as a concession or form of generosity rather than as a legitimate access requirement.
37. Contributors also described organisations advertising flexible or hybrid working arrangements externally while operating significantly more rigid attendance expectations in practice.
38. This can create pressure on disabled employees to demonstrate exceptional productivity or gratitude in order to justify flexible arrangements.
39. I have personally been cautious about discussing flexibility during job applications and interviews because of concerns that requesting more remote working than advertised could negatively affect how my commitment or suitability is perceived.
40. Several contributors, including myself, described concerns that requesting flexibility during recruitment processes could negatively affect how their suitability for roles was perceived.
41. Several disabled women who shared experiences for this submission described needing union support to secure reasonable adjustments or flexible working arrangements. Others described managers having limited understanding of their legal responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010.
42. One disabled worker described being required to undertake weekly commuting despite remote working successfully supporting the substantive functions of her role. She also highlighted that her workplace used hotdesking and open-plan working arrangements that created additional barriers due to mobility impairments.
43. Another contributor described flexible and remote working as the only realistic way she could continue paid employment while managing both disability-related needs and caring responsibilities for disabled children.
44. Another disabled woman working in disability inclusion and accessibility described remote working as transformative for both her physical and mental health. She explained that remote working allowed her to manage chronic pain and fatigue more sustainably, including by changing working positions throughout the day rather than remaining seated upright at a desk for prolonged periods.
45. One contributor who runs her own business described fully flexible and remote working arrangements as essential not only to her own ability to work with fibromyalgia, pain, and fatigue, but also to the sustainability of the wider business and the wellbeing of other employees with caring responsibilities and access needs.
46. These experiences suggest that flexible working alone is insufficient without broader cultural change regarding how disability, productivity, and workplace participation are understood.
47. There also remains a widespread assumption among some employers that employees working remotely are less productive or less available. Both my own professional experience and the experiences gathered for this submission challenge this assumption.
48. During more than three years of primarily remote working in senior leadership and policy roles, I remained fully engaged in organisational leadership, team management, stakeholder engagement, campaigning, and public affairs work.
49. The assumption that productivity or commitment can only be demonstrated through physical presence risks disproportionately disadvantaging disabled workers.
50. Workplace culture should not be built around the assumption that physical presence is inherently more valuable or productive than remote participation.

Return-to-Office Mandates and Physical Attendance

51. Return-to-office mandates risk disproportionately excluding disabled workers from employment and career progression.
52. Mandatory office attendance requirements are often justified using broad references to collaboration, culture, or visibility, without employers clearly explaining why physical presence is operationally necessary.
53. While there can be genuine benefits to in-person collaboration and relationship-building, this submission is not arguing that all roles should be fully remote or that office attendance is always unreasonable.
54. Rather, employers should adopt collaborative and individualised approaches that consider both the operational requirements of the role and the arrangements that allow employees to work most effectively and sustainably.
55. Employers should be expected to clearly explain:

a)      why office attendance is necessary;

b)      which aspects of the role specifically require physical presence;

c)      what impact reduced attendance would have on organisational outcomes; and

d)      how equality impacts on disabled workers have been considered.

56. This should apply particularly where organisations have already demonstrated that remote or hybrid working arrangements can function effectively.
57. Requiring employers to explain and evidence attendance expectations would improve transparency and accountability for disabled workers seeking flexible arrangements.
58. Transport barriers remain an important part of this discussion, although they are not the only barrier disabled workers face.
59. Commuting may involve inaccessible infrastructure, unreliable assistance, physical exhaustion, additional financial costs, and cumulative fatigue. For some disabled people, the workplace itself may also remain inaccessible or difficult to navigate.
60. Contributors also described circumstances where attendance requirements created substantial additional costs, including transport and accommodation expenses. In some cases, these costs were so significant that continued employment became financially unviable despite employees being able to perform the substantive functions of their roles.
61. Even where office attendance is limited to one or two days per week, the cumulative impact on disabled workers can still be substantial.
62. Contributors to this submission also highlighted the important distinction between attendance being technically possible and participation being sustainable or equitable. Several disabled workers described being physically capable of attending workplaces or events occasionally, but only through significant additional labour involving transport coordination, support arrangements, fatigue management, recovery time, anxiety management, or increased physical risk.
63. Remote and hybrid working can therefore play an important role in reducing barriers to employment participation.
64. One contributor stated that if her organisation introduced mandatory office attendance, she would likely have to leave her role entirely despite successfully performing the job remotely. She noted that both she and her employer would lose out unnecessarily, given that the substantive functions of her role could be carried out remotely.
65. Employers should be expected to demonstrate that office attendance requirements are proportionate, necessary, and based on clear operational need rather than assumptions about visibility or workplace culture.

Flexible Working and Career Progression

66. Flexible working may improve employment access while simultaneously creating concerns around progression and visibility.
67. Physical presence is still frequently associated with commitment, leadership, and ambition.
68. This can create disadvantages for disabled workers who work remotely or require greater flexibility.
69. Anecdotally, I am increasingly finding that fully remote opportunities are limited, particularly at more senior levels, despite wider evidence showing the decline of remote vacancies in recent years.
70. This risks creating a labour market where disabled workers are effectively funnelled into lower-paid or less senior remote roles while leadership positions increasingly require physical attendance.
71. Contributors to this submission also highlighted that remote opportunities can feel concentrated either at relatively junior levels or at the most senior levels within organisations, making progression through the middle of the career ladder particularly difficult for disabled workers requiring flexibility.
72. One contributor described working successfully in a senior remote role with flexible hours that enabled her to manage pain and fatigue. However, she also described other career opportunities effectively ending once she disclosed the level of flexibility and support she would require.
73. Contributors also described feeling reluctant to leave supportive employers because of the uncertainty and potential risk involved in disclosing support needs or renegotiating adjustments within new workplaces. This may limit disabled workers’ confidence to pursue progression opportunities even where they are highly qualified or experienced.
74. There is also evidence of some workplaces linking attendance to performance assessments, progression opportunities, or financial rewards such as bonuses.
75. Such approaches risk disproportionately disadvantaging disabled workers who face greater barriers to physical attendance.
76. Employers should ensure that progression opportunities, performance assessments, leadership development, and networking opportunities are not unfairly influenced by physical visibility or attendance patterns.
77. This is particularly important given evidence that some employers are increasingly linking attendance expectations to progression opportunities, remuneration, or perceptions of commitment.
78. Contributors also highlighted that networking, conferences, speaking opportunities, and relationship-building opportunities remain heavily dependent on physical attendance. Disabled workers may therefore face additional logistical, financial, and accessibility barriers that are often invisible to non-disabled colleagues.
79. Contributors with fluctuating conditions also described the burden of repeatedly having to explain intimate or unpredictable symptoms to employers and recruitment professionals, alongside concerns that they were perceived as unreliable, exaggerating symptoms, or not genuinely disabled because their conditions varied day-to-day.

Employment Rights Act 2025 and Reasonable Adjustments

80. The flexible working provisions introduced through the Employment Rights Act 2025 are a positive step and may improve access to flexible working discussions for some disabled workers.
81. However, the legislation does not create a guaranteed right to work remotely or flexibly, and disabled workers may still face significant barriers where employers retain broad discretion to refuse requests.
82. The ability to request flexible working is not equivalent to meaningful access to flexible working, particularly where disabled workers fear negative impacts on recruitment, progression, or perceptions of commitment.
83. Contributors also described ongoing uncertainty around whether flexible working arrangements would remain secure over time. Even where remote or hybrid arrangements were currently working well, some disabled workers expressed concern that changes in management, organisational culture, or workplace policy could rapidly make their employment inaccessible again.
84. Legislation alone will not be sufficient to address the barriers disabled workers continue to face.
85. Disabled workers may still feel reluctant to request flexibility due to fears about how they will be perceived during recruitment, progression, or performance assessment processes.
86. One contributor described finding it difficult to request adjustments during recruitment processes despite professionally advising organisations on accessibility and inclusion herself. She highlighted that requesting adjustments can feel personally risky, particularly where applicants fear being perceived as less capable or more difficult before employment has even begun.
87. Contributors also described being expected to repeatedly justify their need for adjustments and propose solutions to organisational barriers themselves, rather than employers taking proactive responsibility for identifying how reasonable adjustments could be implemented.
88. There also remains inconsistency in employer understanding of how flexible working intersects with reasonable adjustment duties under the Equality Act 2010.
89. Remote or hybrid working may constitute a reasonable adjustment for some disabled workers depending on the nature of their role and the barriers they experience. Contributors also described delays in implementing adjustments where employers required additional assessments or evidence while failing to progress those processes in a timely manner, leaving disabled workers without support for extended periods.
90. Contributors also described circumstances where Occupational Health recommendations supported remote or flexible working arrangements, yet adjustments were still resisted or refused despite strong performance and evidence that work could be carried out successfully.
91. Employers should therefore be required to clearly explain and evidence why remote or hybrid working requests cannot reasonably be accommodated where disabled workers request them as reasonable adjustments.
92. This should include outlining the operational reasons for refusal, the alternatives considered, and how equality impacts on disabled workers were assessed.
93. Disabled workers should also have access to a clear and accessible process for challenging or requesting reconsideration of refusals.
94. Stronger guidance is also needed to ensure employers understand that flexible working and reasonable adjustments are not separate issues where disability is concerned.
95. While the Equality and Human Rights Commission has an important statutory role in enforcing Equality Act protections, the experiences outlined in this submission suggest that many disabled workers continue to encounter inconsistent implementation of reasonable adjustments and flexible working obligations. Greater clarity, enforcement, and employer education are needed.
96. More accessible and proactive enforcement mechanisms may also help reduce the burden currently placed on disabled workers to individually challenge inaccessible workplace practices.
97. Contributors also described significant difficulties navigating Access to Work while already managing employment and disability-related needs. Challenges included inaccessible administrative processes, unclear renewal systems, support models built around fixed workplaces rather than remote or multi-site roles, and evidence requirements that were difficult to manage in practice.
98. One contributor described ultimately not renewing her Access to Work support because the administrative burden and inaccessible communication processes became too difficult to manage alongside full-time work and disability-related energy limitations.
99. These experiences suggest that Access to Work processes may not currently reflect the realities of modern flexible working arrangements or the cumulative administrative burden many disabled workers already navigate.
100.                    Contributors also described experiences where disability-related absence, fluctuating conditions, or caring responsibilities were managed through disciplinary or performance frameworks rather than supportive or adjustment-based approaches.

Flexible Working, Inclusion, and Workplace Culture

101.                    Good flexible working arrangements should involve collaboration and ongoing discussion between employers and employees regarding both organisational requirements and the working arrangements that allow employees to perform at their best.
102.                    Different employees may work best in different ways. Employers should avoid rigid or standardised approaches that assume one working model is suitable for everyone.
103.                    Inclusive workplace culture does not depend solely on physical presence.
104.                    Contributors also highlighted that disabled and neurodivergent workers may work differently from standardised workplace expectations while still producing high-quality or high-volume work. Several described workplaces valuing their productivity and expertise while simultaneously penalising unpredictability, fluctuating conditions, or non-standard working patterns.
105.                    There are many ways organisations can foster connection and participation remotely, including dedicated social time during staff meetings, staff-led networks or groups, collaborative digital workspaces, and regular organisation-wide communication.
106.                    Contributors who described positive experiences of flexible working consistently referenced workplace cultures where adjustment discussions were normalised, managers proactively raised access needs, and disabled employees did not feel treated as exceptional or burdensome for requiring support.
107.                    Contributors also repeatedly described a disconnect between organisations publicly presenting themselves as supportive of disabled workers and the reality of how flexible working requests or reasonable adjustments were handled in practice.
108.                    Leadership should focus on creating working arrangements that allow organisational goals to be met while also enabling employees to work in the ways that are most sustainable and effective for them.

Experiences of Disabled Women and Intersectional Barriers

109.                    Disabled women may experience additional barriers relating to flexible working and workplace participation.
110.                    This can include caring responsibilities, lower average earnings, workplace discrimination, and assumptions regarding commitment or availability.
111.                    Several contributors to this submission described balancing paid work alongside caring responsibilities for disabled children or family members.
112.                    One contributor described remote working as the only realistic way she could remain employed while attending frequent health, education, and social care appointments connected to her children's needs.
113.                    Another contributor described neurodivergent colleagues being expected to work in noisy open-plan environments despite the negative impact this had on concentration and wellbeing.
114.                    These experiences demonstrate the importance of taking an intersectional approach to flexible working policies and workplace inclusion.

Recommendations

115.                    The recommendations below are intended to support greater transparency, accountability, and collaboration in flexible working arrangements rather than promoting a single working model for all employees or sectors.
116.                    Employers should be required to clearly justify mandatory office attendance requirements, particularly where remote or hybrid working arrangements have previously been shown to be effective.
117.                    This would help ensure that attendance requirements are transparent, evidence-based, and open to meaningful scrutiny where they disproportionately affect disabled workers.
118.                    Employers should clearly explain operational need, equality impact considerations, and why alternative arrangements would not be suitable.
119.                    Where disabled workers request remote or hybrid working as a reasonable adjustment, employers should be required to provide clear written reasons where requests are refused.
120.                    Disabled workers should have access to a clear and accessible reconsideration or appeal process where flexible working requests are denied.
121.                    Government and employers should recognise that flexible working can be an important equality measure rather than simply an employee benefit. Contributors repeatedly described remote and flexible working arrangements increasing their ability to sustain employment, manage health conditions, reduce fatigue, and work more productively.
122.                    Greater guidance and education are needed to improve employer understanding of reasonable adjustments, inclusive flexible working, and disability equality obligations.
123.                    Employers should ensure that progression opportunities, performance management, and workplace culture do not unfairly prioritise physical presence over outcomes and contribution.
124.                    Employers should adopt collaborative and individualised approaches to flexible working arrangements rather than rigid or standardised attendance expectations.
125.                    This should include recognising that different employees, roles, and organisations may require different approaches, and that effective flexible working cannot be achieved through one-size-fits-all policies.

Conclusion

126.                    Flexible working has improved employment access for many disabled people, but significant barriers remain.
127.                    The evidence outlined in this submission suggests that the challenge is no longer whether flexible working is operationally possible in many sectors, but whether disabled workers will continue to have equitable access to it.
128.                    The Covid-19 pandemic demonstrated that many forms of remote and hybrid working are operationally possible across a wide range of sectors. However, disabled workers continue to experience flexibility as conditional, inconsistently applied, and vulnerable to reversal.
129.                    Flexible working should be understood as an important equality issue that affects disabled people's ability to access, remain in, and progress within employment.
130.                    There is a real risk that the employment gains many disabled people experienced during and after the pandemic will be gradually reversed through increasingly rigid attendance expectations and a renewed prioritisation of physical presence.
131.                    Without stronger accountability, clearer employer responsibilities, and more inclusive workplace cultures, disabled people will continue to be excluded from employment opportunities that could otherwise be accessible.
132.                    The pandemic demonstrated that many barriers previously presented as unavoidable were, in reality, organisational and cultural choices. Future employment policy should ensure that disabled workers are not excluded as those choices are reconsidered or reversed.
133.                    I would like to sincerely thank the disabled women who generously shared their experiences, insights, and reflections with me in support of this consultation. Their openness, honesty, and trust were invaluable in shaping and strengthening this submission.

Note: References to the Equality and Human Rights Commission within this submission relate specifically to its statutory role in enforcing Equality Act protections and should not be interpreted as blanket endorsement of the Commission’s wider work or positions.

June 2026