The Hidden Cost of Asking for Workplace Accommodation
Every law that promises accessibility carries an unspoken risk: that the people who try to use it are harmed by the process itself.
For many neurodivergent and disabled employees, the fight to secure accommodation becomes a second injury—not only from bias, but from the very systems designed to prevent it. Legislation aims to guarantee inclusion. In practice? It often delivers administration and multiple forms of harm instead of accessibility.
Employees must repeatedly prove their needs, submit to assessments, and wait through layers of review. Every form and email is a reminder that belonging must be justified.
The process becomes a maze—opaque, exhausting, and slow enough to push people out (or exit them) before resolution. Even when accommodation requests are approved—often after months or even years—implementation can stall. Timelines extend. Supervisors change. Documentation gets lost. Loopholes are created and used. Meetings get cancelled. The law requires compliance, but rarely enforces it on accessibility. The result? Quiet attrition of the very people the policy was intended to protect.
Five Forms of Harm Hidden in the Accommodation Process
Administrative harm
Professional harm
Psychological harm
Economic harm
Social harm
This is not failure of legislation—it’s failure of enforcement.