The Lens Finds Its Place. An imagined conservation studio, where a carefully positioned tool supports close attention to the work.
Good accommodation begins with the person, the essential work and a willingness to find out what actually helps.
By Arbab Naseebullah Kasi, Chief Executive Officer - CEO, Feel Worldwide Foundation Inc.
The way a job has always been done can become so familiar that nobody remembers choosing it. Instructions arrive in one format. Equipment has one fixed setting. A task is performed standing because everyone before this employee stood. Over time, the method starts to look like part of the job itself.
That is worth questioning when someone encounters a disability-related barrier. Before drawing a conclusion about their ability, examine the conditions under which they are being asked to work. A change in equipment, communication or physical arrangement may allow an experienced person to do work that the existing setup makes unnecessarily difficult.
Reasonable accommodation requires attention to a particular person in a particular role. It cannot be reduced to a catalogue of products, a diagnosis matched to a standard response or a manager's confidence that they know what would help. The employee brings knowledge of their own experience. The employer brings knowledge of the work and responsibility for making the arrangement function. A useful process gives both forms of knowledge somewhere to meet.
Understand the work before defending the method
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission describes essential functions as the basic duties of a job. Relevant evidence includes why the position exists, the consequences of leaving a duty undone, the experience of people who have performed it and the availability of others to do it. A job description matters, but the actual work matters too. EEOC employer guidance.
This is a practical starting point for a conversation. What result does the position require? Which duties are central? Which details describe a customary method that could change without losing the result?
For example, imagine that accurate inspection is a central responsibility. The employer should be able to explain the accuracy required and the conditions under which inspection must happen. That still leaves a separate question about the viewing equipment, positioning or information format used to carry it out. A clear description of the result makes possible alternatives easier to assess.
Care is needed on both sides. Employers should not relabel every habit as essential to avoid considering a change. Equally, accommodation should not be described as a promise that every duty can disappear. Under the U.S. ADA framework, an employer does not have to eliminate an essential function as an accommodation. EEOC guidance on accommodation and essential functions.
The aim is to make a fair assessment possible. An inaccessible method can obscure a person's capacity just as an unclear performance expectation can obscure whether a proposed adjustment works.
Let an ordinary request open the conversation
A person should not need to become an employment-law specialist before anyone listens. EEOC guidance explains that an accommodation request can use ordinary language and does not have to be written or mention the ADA. The person must communicate a need for a workplace change related to a medical condition. The employer should respond promptly and explore what is needed. EEOC guidance for small employers.
For an organization, this means training the people who are likely to hear the first request. A supervisor who receives it should know whom to involve, how to protect the information and how to prevent it from disappearing into an inbox. An employee should receive a clear next step rather than repeated directions to someone else.
The first discussion can stay close to the work. Ask which task or workplace feature creates difficulty, what the person has already tried and whether they have a proposed solution. Listen without turning the discussion into an interrogation. Someone may be able to describe the barrier very clearly while having no idea which product or arrangement could address it.
The employer can choose among effective reasonable accommodations, including a less costly option, rather than necessarily providing the employee's preferred choice. Effectiveness is the condition that matters here. A cheaper arrangement that leaves the barrier in place does not become effective because it is easier to buy. EEOC guidance on choosing an accommodation.
Where a decision needs input from technology, facilities or another department, assign someone to coordinate it. The employee should not have to manage an informal procurement project simply to obtain a response.
Learn from examples without copying them blindly
Two published EEOC illustrations make the importance of fit especially clear. One describes a cashier whose fatigue is reduced by using a stool, allowing the job to be performed while seated. Another describes an attorney given a print-magnifying device instead of a reader. Although the device makes the text readable, the resulting difficulty and slowness leave it ineffective for that attorney's work. These are illustrations in agency guidance, not measured outcomes from a study. EEOC examples of reasonable and effective accommodations.
The second example deserves particular attention. Purchasing something associated with accessibility does not establish that access has been achieved. Equipment can be suitable in one role and unsuitable in another. A person may be able to use a tool briefly in a demonstration but struggle with it over the actual volume or complexity of work.
A useful evaluation therefore reaches beyond the product description. Try the arrangement with relevant tasks, within an appropriate and agreed process. Ask about effort as well as completion. Check whether the person can use it with the other systems on which their work depends. Leave room for the employee to say that the first attempt is not helping.
Examples should expand the conversation. They should never become a reason to tell someone that a solution must work because it helped somebody else.
Keep private information out of public explanations
An accommodation process can expose someone to more scrutiny than the work itself requires. Managers need to resist that drift.
Under EEOC guidance, documentation requests should be limited to information needed to establish the disability and the need for accommodation when these are not obvious. Complete medical records are generally inappropriate because they can contain unrelated information. EEOC guidance on documentation.
Medical information must be kept confidential and separate from ordinary personnel records, subject to limited exceptions. In an EEOC health-care example, coworkers question a reserved parking space. Management may not disclose that it was provided as an accommodation to explain the apparent difference in treatment. EEOC confidentiality guidance.
The everyday implication is straightforward. Explain the working arrangement to those who need to implement it, within the applicable confidentiality rules. Do not turn the employee's history into an explanation for the whole team. A colleague can be told how a shared process will operate without being invited to judge another person's medical circumstances.
Respect also means avoiding assumptions. Someone's appearance does not tell a supervisor whether they have a disability. A diagnosis alone does not reveal every functional limitation or the adjustment a person would choose. Different people may need different arrangements, and the same person's needs may change.
A workplace should make it possible to discuss a barrier without making disclosure a public event. Trust is easier to preserve when staff know who will receive information, why it is needed and how it will be protected.
Read the cost evidence carefully
The Job Accommodation Network's report, updated in September 2025, covers employers who contacted JAN during 2019–2024. Of 26,028 employers sent surveys, 5,406 responded. Cost data came from 1,425 respondents: 61% reported no cost, 33% a one-time expense and 6% ongoing expense. The reported median one-time amount was $300 among 434 providing an amount; the median annual ongoing amount was $2,400 among 67. JAN cost and benefits report.
These are employer self-reports from a selected group that sought JAN's help and then responded. Only a subset supplied cost data. The findings are not a representative estimate for every employer or accommodation, and reported benefits do not establish causation. The survey does not show what every employee experienced or guarantee that a particular adjustment will be inexpensive.
The practical lesson is to investigate the actual proposal before assuming it will be unaffordable. A small purchase can be worth considering without turning a survey median into a spending ceiling. Some arrangements require ongoing services, specialized equipment or substantial changes. Their need deserves an individual assessment too.
Cost discussions should be concrete. Identify what must be purchased, what training or maintenance is involved and which resources are available. Under the U.S. framework, undue hardship concerns significant difficulty or expense in context, including the employer's resources and operations. It is not established simply by identifying a price. EEOC employer guidance on undue hardship.
It is also unwise to make the person's legitimacy depend on an attractive business case. Good planning can examine operational benefits while recognizing that legal obligations do not vanish when a return-on-investment calculation is unavailable.
A hypothetical adjustment from request to review
Consider this hypothetical example, created to illustrate a process rather than describe a real employee or a Foundation project.
An experienced purchasing coordinator has a disability-related difficulty using dense, image-based supplier documents. Their job requires checking quantities, comparing quoted terms and recording accurate orders. They explain that the document format is the barrier and ask for accessible digital files that work with their preferred reading tools.
The manager first checks the actual duties with the coordinator. Accuracy remains important. The discussion does not begin by removing the employee from purchasing work or assigning someone else to make their decisions. It examines how the information reaches them.
The coordinator and the relevant technology staff test a small set of representative files. A document that appears readable on screen may still have an unusable reading order. A scanned page converted automatically may contain errors in a price or product code. Those errors need checking because this job depends on the details.
Suppose an effective approach combines accessible supplier files with a verified conversion process when an accessible original is unavailable. The organization records who will obtain the files, who will resolve a conversion problem and how urgent orders will be handled while the process is being established. It limits access to any medical documentation and shares only the operational instructions needed by the people involved.
A review is agreed after the coordinator has used the arrangement on actual work. The discussion asks whether the information is accessible, whether checking orders remains accurate and whether unexpected difficulties have appeared. If one supplier's documents continue to cause problems, that becomes a specific issue to solve rather than proof that the employee cannot do the role.
No diagnosis has been invented for this example, and no outcome is guaranteed. The point is the sequence of decisions: understand the barrier, involve the person, test the proposed arrangement and stay responsible for implementation. A device or file format becomes useful only when it fits into a working process.
Follow through after the approval
An approval message can arrive long before a usable adjustment does. Equipment may still need installation. Someone may need training. A service may need booking. A software update may undo a setting that previously worked.
JAN's process checklist includes implementation, employee feedback and monitoring, with a return to the process if an accommodation becomes ineffective. It suggests an early follow-up, such as one or two weeks after implementation, rather than treating the decision as the end of the work. JAN accommodation process checklist.
Choose a review point that fits the arrangement and the work. Explain that its purpose is to find out whether the adjustment is useful, not to make the person defend their disability again. Agree how to report a problem sooner. Record what needs changing and who will act on it.
This also requires continuity when managers change. An employee should not discover that a workable arrangement has become an unexplained exception because the person who approved it has left. Relevant operational knowledge should transfer through an appropriate confidential process.
Organizations can learn from these experiences without building public case histories about their staff. They can notice recurring accessibility problems, improve purchasing requirements and make instructions clearer. Broad improvements are valuable, while individual needs still deserve individual attention.
Be clear about the legal setting
This article discusses U.S. federal disability-employment guidance. ADA Title I generally covers private, state and local government employers with at least 15 employees; federal employment is covered through the Rehabilitation Act. State and local laws may provide additional protections or cover smaller employers. EEOC overview of coverage.
Rights, procedures and deadlines differ across jurisdictions and circumstances. Readers outside the United States should check their own country's rules, and anyone facing a specific employment dispute should seek timely advice from a qualified local professional or the relevant enforcement agency. This article provides general information, not individual legal advice.
A workplace adjustment can change what becomes possible because it changes the conditions in which someone is expected to contribute. Taking that possibility seriously means listening carefully, examining the actual work and following through until an agreed arrangement can be used.
If your organization can contribute disability-informed employer education, accessibility expertise or practical resources, propose a focused collaboration with Feel Worldwide Foundation Inc. Describe the contribution, intended participants, location and responsibilities you have in mind. An inquiry opens a discussion; it does not confirm a service, partnership or funding commitment. Please do not include confidential employee medical information.
To support the Foundation's broader work, consider making a donation. Review the available giving options and any designated purpose before contributing.
