Negotiating reasonable workplace accommodations: Perspectives of employers, employees with disabilities, and rehabilitation service providers
Abstract
Providing reasonable workplace accommodations for employees with disabilities has been associated with enhanced job tenure, performance, and satisfaction. However, employers have struggled to effectively meet employee accommodation requests, and few studies have specifically examined how employees and employers negotiate requests. In this exploratory focus group study, we asked three key stakeholder groups – employers, employees with disabilities, and vocational rehabilitation service providers – “What helps and hinders requesting, negotiating, implementing, and evaluating workplace accommodations for employees with disabilities?” From our grounded theory analysis, we found that, although employers' and employees' perceptions about negotiating accommodations converged in several ways (e.g., employees presenting credible requests to employers to improve job performance), they differed sharply on their expectations of each other (e.g., costs of accommodations versus moral obligations to provide them). Such divergence requires that employers and employees with disabilities should become more aware of each other's perspectives, and more educated about how accommodation requests ought to be managed to improve job retention, reduce turnover costs, and decrease the likelihood of litigation. Based on findings of our small study, we offer a modest recommendation: educational interventions should be specifically tailored to each stakeholder group's roles according to major thematic areas of credibility, trust, and obligations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many employers harbor sincere yet ill-founded views about the work-related abilities of people with disabilities.
“Many employers have been shown to harbor sincere yet ill-founded views about the work-related abilities of people with disabilities; these negative views are often a result of interrelated concerns that permeate the entire employment cycle.”
From The Participation of People with Disabilities in the Workplace Across the Employment Cycle: Employer Concerns and Research Evidence (2020) · cites this paper as Gold et al., 2012
Managers may react negatively to a late disclosure, even when 'late' simply means noting one's disability at the end of an employment interview instead of the beginning.
“However, managers may also react negatively to a late disclosure (Gold et al., 2012; Jans et al., 2012), even when “late” simply means noting one’s disability at the end of an employment interview instead of the beginning”
From The Participation of People with Disabilities in the Workplace Across the Employment Cycle: Employer Concerns and Research Evidence (2020) · cites this paper as Gold et al., 2012
Employers' pessimistic views about the work-related abilities of people with disabilities have been well-documented in the literature.
“We note that these pessimistic views have been well-documented in the literature”
From The Participation of People with Disabilities in the Workplace Across the Employment Cycle: Employer Concerns and Research Evidence (2020) · cites this paper as Gold et al., 2012
Managers often have reservations concerning the perceived value of accommodating employees with disabilities.
“However, managers often have reservations concerning the perceived value of accommodating employees with disabilities (Gold et al., 2012; Hernandez et al., 2008; Kaye et al., 2011; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2008; see also Domzal et al., 2008).”
From The Participation of People with Disabilities in the Workplace Across the Employment Cycle: Employer Concerns and Research Evidence (2020) · cites this paper as Gold et al., 2012
Individual employees are expected to "make the case" for their adjustment requests, placing the burden on them to identify the need for an adjustment and request the necessary adjustments from their employer.
“As such, individual employees are expected to “make the case” for their adjustment requests [13], thus placing the burden on them to (1) identify the need for an adjustment and (2) request the necessary adjustments from their employer [14].”
From Autistic adults’ views and experiences of requesting and receiving workplace adjustments in the UK (2022) · cites this paper as [13]
This finding is in line with existing US research suggesting that employees often have to 'make the case' for their adjustments.
“This finding is in line with existing research from the US, suggesting that employees often have to “make the case” for their adjustments [13–15]–something with which our participants clearly struggled, for several reasons.”
From Autistic adults’ views and experiences of requesting and receiving workplace adjustments in the UK (2022) · cites this paper as [13]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 79
- Authors
- Gold, P. B., Oire, S. N., Fabian, E. S., & Wewiorski, N. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-01-01
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 25-37
- ISSN
- 1052-2263 (ISSN-L)
- 1878-6316
- OpenAlex
- W1707942204
- Cited by
- 79
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 12.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Education and Employment
- Social Sciences › Demography › Retirement, Disability, and Employment
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
- Keywords
- disabled workers, accommodation requests, employer-employee negotiation, employer perceptions, employee perceptions, credibility, trust, moral obligation, job retention, accommodation costs, litigation risk, stakeholder perspectives
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
