**The three most common duty-to-accommodate errors Alberta organizations
make — and what they cost.**
The duty to accommodate under the Alberta Human Rights Act is one of the
most misunderstood obligations in HR practice. Not because the legal
principle is unclear — it isn't — but because the gap between
knowing the principle and applying it competently in the actual messy
circumstances of a real workplace is significant. THE THREE MOST COMMON ERRORS ERROR 1 — REQUIRING A DIAGNOSIS: Employers do not have the legal right to require an employee to disclose their diagnosis. What employers are entitled to is information about functional limitations — what the person cannot do, what they need to be able to do their work. 'I need you to tell me exactly what is wrong with you' is not a legally defensible accommodation approach. ERROR 2 — REQUIRING MEDICAL INFORMATION BEFORE ENGAGING IN CONVERSATION: The accommodation process begins when an employee signals a need — not when they have produced documentation. Delaying the conversation until paperwork arrives is a delay in the employer's legal obligation, not a management of it. ERROR 3 — TREATING ACCOMMODATION AS CHARITY RATHER THAN OBLIGATION: Accommodation language that frames adjustments as exceptional favours, burdens on the team, or special treatment is psychologically corrosive and legally problematic. It signals to the employee — and to any subsequent adjudicator — that the organization views its legal obligation as optional generosity.
**Why trauma-informed accommodation conversations produce better
outcomes.**
The research on return-to-work outcomes after psychological injury is
clear: the quality of the initial accommodation conversation is the
strongest predictor of sustained return. Employees who experience the
accommodation conversation as safe, non-judgmental, and collaborative
return more successfully and with lower recurrence rates than those who
experience it as interrogative, skeptical, or transactional.
The nervous system is directly relevant here. An employee disclosing a
mental health condition is in a physiologically vulnerable state. If the
Duty to Accommodate — What It Actually Requires
*Most HR professionals know the phrase. Far fewer know what it actually
demands — and what it doesn't.*
*The duty to accommodate is not a favour. It is not optional. And it
does not require an employee to tell you what is wrong — only what
they need.*
The nervous system is directly relevant here. An employee disclosing a
mental health condition is in a physiologically vulnerable state. If the
conversation triggers a threat response — perceived judgment,
skepticism about the legitimacy of their condition, a sense of having to
Evidence-based insights on the science of human performance at work. Published every Tuesday. Free, always.
Subscribe on LinkedIn →