Barriers to accommodation at work

Accommodations facilitate the full employment of individuals living with disabilities. However, access to accommodation has been identified as a key employment barrier (Garcia et al., 2005). The issue of access, however, is complex and represents many different barriers. These barriers are the manifestation of negative attitudes held by supervisors and coworkers (Colella, 2001). Barriers include scepticism, the repetitive need to disclose and request accommodation, attitudinal barriers, identity issues, and work motivation.

Supervisors and coworkers are more likely to be sceptical towards individuals with invisible disabilities, holding them responsible for their limitations (Colella & Stone, 2005). Negative perceptions are exacerbated by a predominance of individuals with invisible disabilities choosing not to disclose their condition unless it begins to affect their work (Beatty & Joffee, 2006). Colella (2001) noted that peers and coworkers are more likely to suspect an individual with an invisible disability of faking. Interestingly, this fallacy can be so strong that despite clear evidence of an invisible disability, an employee may still be perceived as a “liar” (Santuzzi et al., 2014). For example, in a study on accommodation fairness, researchers had to remove some participants from analysis because they simply did not believe that the individual receiving accommodation had an invisible disability, despite having been told they did (Paetzold et al., 2008). The issue is further highlighted in a qualitative analysis on invisible disabilities with participants saying that a significant barrier in accessing accommodations was policing by others (i.e. family, friends, and coworkers) regarding their actual need for such accommodations (Kattari et al., 2018). For example, some individuals with invisible disabilities did not feel they could use disability seating when commuting to work. Because their condition is invisible, they feared negative reactions from fellow commuters (Lacaille et al., 2007).

Furthermore, as Beatty and Kirby (2006) argue, disclosure is neither a binary concept nor a one-time event. As supervisors and coworkers change or as symptoms related to the invisible disability fluctuate, employees with invisible disabilities are repeatedly required to decide whether or not they will out themselves. If they choose to disclose, the next decision relates to whether or not they will seek an accommodation. Many invisible disabilities, such as chronic pain and anxiety disorder, often ebb and flow (Vajravelu et al., 2016); thus, the need for accommodations also fluctuate (Santuzzi et al., 2014). Need fluctuations may happen over longer periods of time or could vary weekly or even daily (Beatty & Joffe, 2006). The transience or fluctuation in support needs means that the employees must ask for accommodation every time there is a need. For example, an employee with migraines may need to leave work early and make up the missed work time later. If migraines occur regularly, three times a week for example, this employee will need to ask for an accommodation three times in the same week. That means she or he will have to disclose the condition to the employer three times a week, which is likely to force the employee to give unwanted details about their condition.

In addition to external barriers, individuals may internally struggle with the disability label (Kattari et al., 2018). During multiple focus groups, with individuals working with arthritis, an issue discussed was reluctance to use disability seating in public transportation. Though this was in part motivated, as discussed above, by fear of judgement from others it also represented an identity struggle. Despite the fact that prolonged standing increased their pain levels, they reported experiencing feelings of guilt and shame for using available disability seating. This internal clash is potentially motivated by a rejection of the disability label (Lacaille et al., 2007).

Much like the identity issues discussed above, the desire to be a good team member and employee can also generate internal struggle that manifests as an accommodation barrier. This is evident in the many team- and organizational-based factors that are considered when making an accommodation request. Employees have been found to consider both the cost to the organization and any inconvenience they perceive it may cause for supervisors, coworkers or clients (Baldridge & Veiga, 2006). Despite real accommodation needs even minor costs can result in employees choosing not to access accommodations. Additionally, belief that an accommodation, if granted, would have an impact on supervisors and coworkers also motivated withholding of accommodation requests (Baldridge & Veiga, 2006). In the next section we will propose flexible work arrangements as a potential solution to prevent the challenges outlined above. Flexible work arrangements are a promising way of accommodating employees with invisible disabilities.