Workplace Accommodation Requests: A Survey of Employee Experiences

In September 2025, ernesty surveyed 214 employees about their experiences requesting workplace accommodations. Of the 208 respondents who had made at least one request, 72% reported experiencing retaliation or negative treatment following their request. Respondents rated the process an average of 8.0 out of 10 for difficulty. Only 8% described the process as supportive, and only 7% described it as respectful.

These findings reflect what five years of direct case work have consistently shown: the accommodation request process, as currently practiced in most workplaces, causes significant harm to the employees it is meant to serve. The data presented here informed the development of ernesty, a workplace rights navigation tool built to change that.

This survey was conducted to better understand the lived experience of employees navigating the accommodation request process. The survey was distributed via a public LinkedIn post and shared through employee resource groups and peer networks. 214 complete responses were collected over approximately one week in September-October 2025.

Respondents were not screened for disability status or employment type. The survey was open to anyone with relevant experience. Geography was the only demographic variable collected. Respondents were predominantly located in the United States (69%), Canada (14%), and the United Kingdom (7%).

No demographic information beyond geography was collected. Factors including disability type, industry, employer size, employment status, race, gender, and other identity variables were not captured and are not accounted for in this analysis. A follow-up study incorporating these variables would be warranted and would meaningfully strengthen the evidence base.

Because the survey was self-selected and distributed through networks with interest in workplace disability issues, the sample likely overrepresents employees who had notable and likely negative experiences with the accommodation process. Findings should be interpreted with this in mind. The true rate of retaliation among all employees who make accommodation requests may be lower than the 72% reported here.

Among the hardest parts of the process, 67% of requesters cited fear of judgment or retaliation. It would be a misreading of this data to frame that fear as the barrier. The barrier is the environment: an accommodation process that resulted in retaliation 72% of the time, and denial more often than approval. The fear employees report is not a psychological obstacle to overcome. It is an accurate assessment of a likely outcome.

This framing matters. When the problem is named as employee fear, the implied solution is employee courage. When the problem is named as employer behavior and a broken process, the solution is information, preparation, and support, which is what ernesty is built to provide.

Among the 214 respondents asked why they had not requested accommodations, the most common reasons were fear of being seen differently (54 mentions), expected denial (47), and not knowing what to ask for (41). Eighteen respondents reported not knowing they could request accommodations at all. These are not failures of the individual. They are predictable responses to a process that has consistently demonstrated it cannot be trusted.

72% of respondents who made requests reported retaliation or negative treatment following the request. This includes respondents who selected standard options (increased scrutiny, PIP, termination) and those whose open-ended descriptions met the definition of retaliation used for this analysis.

Of the standard options, the most common response was increased scrutiny (53 respondents, 25%), followed by placement on a PIP (23, 11%) and termination (22, 11%). Only 14 respondents (7%) reported being more supported following their request.

Critically, retaliation was not limited to employees whose requests were denied. Respondents whose requests were approved also reported increased scrutiny, PIPs, and termination following approval. A successful outcome on paper did not protect employees from negative consequences in practice.

This distinction is significant when interpreting ernesty's 92% approval figure. That figure does not count any case in which retaliation occurred as a successful outcome. An approval accompanied by retaliation (a demotion, a PIP, a hostile shift in treatment) is counted as an effective denial. The 92% reflects cases where employees received an effective accommodation and did not experience retaliation. These are not the same standard, and conflating them would overstate what the data shows.

When asked how likely they would be to use a tool that helps navigate the accommodation process and protect against retaliation, 54% of all respondents rated likelihood at 5 out of 5, and 81% rated it 4 or 5. The features rated most valuable were translating needs into clear requests (64% "game changer"), identifying effective accommodations (60%), exploring options after denial (60%), and controlling disclosure (60%).

Open-ended pricing responses revealed a strong preference for one-time or per-use models rather than subscriptions, and multiple respondents noted that disability- related income loss made any recurring cost a barrier. This finding directly informed ernesty's decision to offer free tools with no account required.

The data from this survey, combined with five years of direct case work supporting more than 2,000 employees through the accommodation process, points to several consistent conclusions.

The accommodation process as currently practiced does not function as a neutral administrative process. It functions as a gatekeeping mechanism that frequently results in harm to the employees who use it. The 72% retaliation rate is not an anomaly. It is consistent with the case data ernesty has accumulated over five years.

The barriers to requesting are as significant as the barriers within the process itself. Fear, lack of knowledge, and anticipated denial prevent many employees from ever making a request. This means the 72% figure almost certainly undercounts the true scope of the problem. Employees who never request because they fear retaliation are not reflected in the data at all.