How Reasonable Are 'Reasonable Accommodations' at Work?

What counts as “reasonable”? It’s a word we assume guarantees fairness, yet in the workplace, the term “reasonable accommodations” can feel anything but fair for employees with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was intended to ensure equity for workers with disabilities, but the ambiguity of the “reasonable” prefix before “accommodations” leaves far too much room for interpretation. As a result, instead of leveling the playing field, this vagueness tips the power balance in favor of employers, often leading to subjective and inconsistent implementations.

This is especially problematic for disabilities like autism, which does not lend itself to a neat checkbox list of accommodations that can be ticked off by human resources. Autism is a vast and heterogeneous spectrum, encompassing a wide range and combinations of needs and strengths. One autistic employee might thrive with just minimal sensory adjustments—such as noise-canceling headphones, a quiet workspace, or the occasional counseling—while another may require flexible hours, remote work, additional technology, the assistance of support staff, and other adjustments.

The accommodation needs of two autistic employees could even clash within the same workspace. The power imbalance here is clear: Employers decide what is “reasonable,” often subjecting autistic employees’ requests to judgment based on perceived convenience rather than genuine need.

This imbalance has serious consequences. Autistic employees with greater or more complex accommodation needs may be viewed as burdensome and resource-intensive, leading to exclusion from hiring, promotions, or even being the first to be laid off. This mirrors the ageism bias seen in many industries, where those deemed “too old” are often the first to go.

The ADA’s reactive enforcement model exacerbates the challenges faced by autistic employees. Unlike self-executing laws, such as traffic regulations, the ADA does not automatically ensure accommodations are provided. Instead, it requires individuals to file lawsuits to compel compliance, turning the pursuit of accommodations into a costly, time-consuming, and emotionally draining legal battle.

This places an undue burden on autistic employees, who must not only navigate the complexities of legal action but also prove they were discriminated against. For many, particularly those already underemployed or lacking strong support networks, this requirement becomes a significant barrier to achieving equitable workplace integration. The fear of retaliation or further marginalization discourages many from seeking the accommodations they desperately need.

Without a clear definition of what is “reasonable,” employers may opt only for “neurodiversity-lite” employees, those they perceive as requiring minimal accommodations and whose neurodivergent traits, such as creativity and problem-solving, are seen as direct assets to the company. This commercial view, often promoted by corporations, risks prioritizing profit-driven motives over true inclusivity, focusing more on leveraging unique skills for innovation rather than addressing the broader needs of disability employment. The company derives the added bonus of being seen as having fulfilled its corporate social responsibility of hiring disabled employees while not really making a dent in addressing the employment gaps faced by the majority of the autistic community.

As we observe National Disability Employment Awareness Month (NDEAM), it is essential to create true equity for all autistic and neurodivergent workers by closing this loophole around the subjectivity of “reasonable accommodations.” Introducing proactive enforcement mechanisms would shift the burden off of employees and ensure accommodations are implemented without requiring legal action. Stronger protections against retaliation and accessible legal aid programs to support those navigating workplace discrimination are crucial.

In addition to legal reform, workplaces should adopt a dynamic accommodation framework, moving away from static checklists and embracing a flexible, ongoing process. Regular reviews would ensure accommodations remain relevant and effective over time. Promoting employer education on the diversity in autism and embedding mandatory training into HR development would equip managers to better support neurodivergent employees and foster a more inclusive culture.

Finally, adopting universal design principles—proactively considering diverse needs—would reduce reliance on individualized accommodations and benefit all employees. Governments and industries should incentivize inclusive hiring and retention practices through financial and recognition-based rewards. Comprehensive data collection on accommodation implementation and retention rates would ensure accountability and help identify areas for improvement.

As we honor NDEAM, let’s not only recognize the strengths of neurodivergent individuals but also dismantle the systemic barriers that hinder the participation of all disabled individuals in the workforce to create truly inclusive workplaces that celebrate diversity in all its forms.