Yes in the case of Linsley v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs. In another defeat for HMRC, the EAT considered Mrs Linsley who joined the organisation in 2001. She had a disability, ulcerative colitis, which can manifest itself in an 'unpredictable, sudden and urgent need for a bowel movement'. Following medical advice, HMRC provided her with a dedicated car parking space but failed to do the same when Ms Linsley changed jobs and moved sites. A non-contractual policy gave priority to employees who required a parking space as a reasonable adjustment, but her new managers were unaware of it.
Despite reducing Mrs Linsley's hours, moving her workstation close to the toilets, allowing her to use any space or lay-by and discounting disability-related sickness, the EAT said providing a dedicated space would have removed the stress caused by uncertainty and alleviated the disadvantage. HMRC's policy, while non-contractual, provided a starting point for making an adjustment. Cases on making reasonable adjustments for disabled people always depend on their own facts, but what lessons can we learn?
Even if you have a policy that is non-contractual, a tribunal will consider it as a relevant factor if an employee argues that an adjustment was reasonable, and your policy addresses that particular adjustment.
The fact that you have made several other adjustments may not save you. The focus will be on the employee's particular disadvantage and whether your adjustments alleviated it.
Remember that any stress induced by your refusal to make a particular adjustment may be a second disadvantage that your disabled employee suffers.