The Law Requires Reasonable Accommodation — Not Just Goodwill
Premiumintermediate8 minutes
The Situation
What They Said
“We can't make special arrangements. If you can't do the job as posted, we'll have to let you go.”
Approximately one in four American adults lives with some form of disability. Many of these individuals are fully capable of performing the essential functions of their jobs — but may need a modification to the work environment, schedule, equipment, or process to do so. The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted precisely to remove the unnecessary barriers that excluded disabled workers from meaningful employment, and it places a legal obligation on employers to engage seriously with accommodation requests rather than dismissing them outright.
Despite this, 'we can't make special arrangements' remains one of the most common responses disabled workers hear when they request accommodation. Employers may genuinely not know the law, or they may be hoping the employee will simply resign. The reality is that most accommodations cost very little — studies by the Job Accommodation Network consistently find that the majority of accommodations cost nothing, and most of the rest cost under $500. The 'special arrangements' framing is itself revealing: the law does not frame accommodation as a special favour, but as a legal right.
The ADA's interactive process requirement means that an employer cannot simply say no. The employer is legally obligated to engage in a good-faith dialogue with the employee to explore what accommodations might work. Unilaterally refusing and threatening termination — without any discussion — is a violation of the statute on its face. Note: State law may provide additional protections beyond the federal baseline described here.
The Fallacy
The 'Job as Posted' Absolutism Fallacy
The argument that an employee must perform the job exactly 'as posted' — without any modification — misunderstands the legal structure of the ADA. The statute does not require disabled employees to perform every marginal or incidental function of a job; it requires them to perform the 'essential functions' of the position, with or without reasonable accommodation. The job posting is written by the employer, often without attention to which functions are truly essential versus peripheral, and it is not a legally binding ceiling on what adjustments are permissible.
This reasoning also ignores the employer's own legal obligations. The ADA does not merely permit employers to offer accommodations voluntarily — it mandates engagement in an 'interactive process,' meaning a genuine, good-faith dialogue with the employee about what modifications might make the job workable. An employer who refuses to even have that conversation is already in violation of the Act, regardless of whether any particular accommodation is ultimately granted.
Finally, 'undue hardship' is the only legitimate legal defence to denying an accommodation — and it requires a specific, fact-based showing that the accommodation would impose a significant difficulty or expense given the employer's size, resources, and operations. A blanket refusal to make 'special arrangements,' with no analysis of the actual request, is not an undue hardship defence; it is an unlawful denial.
What the Law Says
Your Legal Foundation
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)
§ 12112(b)(5)(A) — Failure to Make Reasonable Accommodation
“The term 'discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability' includes not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity.”
This provision makes clear that refusing to accommodate a qualified individual with a disability is itself a form of discrimination under the ADA. The employer cannot simply assert that no accommodations are available; they must demonstrate, with specific evidence, that providing the requested accommodation would impose an undue hardship. A blanket refusal — particularly one coupled with a termination threat — violates this section on its face.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)
§ 12111(9) — Definition of Reasonable Accommodation
“The term 'reasonable accommodation' may include (A) making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; and (B) job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities.”
The statute expressly contemplates a wide range of modifications — from schedule changes to equipment adjustments — as potential reasonable accommodations. The employer's claim that they 'can't make special arrangements' is contradicted by the breadth of what the law explicitly identifies as accommodation. If the employee's request falls within any of these categories and does not constitute undue hardship, the employer is required to provide it.
What Scripture Says
God's Word on This
1 Corinthians 12:22 (NIV)
“On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable,”
Paul's teaching about the body of Christ directly challenges any notion that those with physical limitations are less valuable or capable of contribution. The 'weaker' parts are not discardable — they are indispensable. An employer who dismisses a disabled worker without exploring accommodation is applying a standard that Scripture explicitly rejects: the idea that only those who conform to a narrow physical standard have a place at the table.
Proverbs 31:8-9 (NIV)
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
This passage calls on the faithful to advocate for those whose voices are easily ignored or overridden. A disabled employee threatened with job loss for requesting accommodation is precisely the person this proverb has in mind. Standing firm on one's legal rights — and calling out an unlawful refusal — is not merely a legal act but a moral one, consistent with the biblical call to seek justice for the vulnerable.
🔒
You Know the Law — But Do You Know What to Say?
Reading your rights is one thing. Using them under pressure — calmly, correctly, in the right words — is what actually protects you. Members get the scripted rebuttal for this exact situation: what to say first, what to say if they push back, the tone to use, and the constitutional provision to cite. Practise out loud with audio until it's automatic.
Identity & Dignity and Gender & Equality are free · All 17 domains from R89/month · Cancel anytime
Not ready to subscribe? Get the free checklist first.
10 South African rights scenarios — what to say, what to cite, what to refuse. Free, no card needed.
What They'll Say Next
Common Counter-Arguments
After you respond, they may push back with these arguments. Members get the full rebuttal for each.
They might say: “Your disability isn't severe enough to qualify under the ADA. You seem fine to us.”
🔒 Subscribe to see the full rebuttal and legal counter-argument.
They might say: “You didn't disclose your disability when you were hired, so we had no obligation.”
🔒 Subscribe to see the full rebuttal and legal counter-argument.
Know Your Rights. Know Your Word.
149 South African rights scenarios — exact rebuttals, constitutional law, and Scripture. Practise out loud with audio. Free to start with 2 full domains.