Why Reasonable Accommodation Matters for Staffing Agencies

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act in the US and the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, employers - including staffing agencies acting as employer of record - must make reasonable adjustments to enable qualified individuals with disabilities to perform their job duties. Failing to engage in the accommodation process when a worker raises a disability-related need is not a neutral position. It is a legal violation that exposes the agency to discrimination claims, EEOC charges, and employment tribunal proceedings.

For staffing agencies, the co-employment dynamic creates complexity about where the duty lies. If the agency employs the worker and places them at a client site, the agency must engage with the accommodation request. The client controls the physical work environment. Effective accommodation often requires both parties to act - the agency may need to adjust the worker's contract terms, and the client may need to modify the work environment or schedule. Agencies that push accommodation requests entirely to the client without managing the process are failing their duty and creating liability gaps.

The "reasonable" standard is not a fixed threshold - it is assessed relative to the employer's size, resources, and the nature of the work. An accommodation that would be reasonable for a large national staffing agency may be an undue hardship for a small independent operator. The burden of proving undue hardship sits with the employer, not the worker.

How Reasonable Accommodation Works

The process begins when a worker discloses a disability - defined in the US as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, and in the UK as a physical or mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal daily activities. The employer must then engage in an interactive process (US term) or reasonable adjustment duty (UK term) to identify what adjustments are needed and whether they can be made without undue hardship.

Common accommodations in staffing contexts include schedule modifications (adjusted start times for workers with chronic health conditions), workspace adaptations at the client site (seating, lighting, equipment), modified duties during recovery periods, and remote working where the role genuinely permits it. Providing a job coach or allowing additional training time for workers with cognitive or learning disabilities is also an established accommodation in appropriate contexts.

The agency does not have to accept the worker's preferred accommodation. It must explore whether any effective accommodation is available - but if multiple options exist, the employer can choose the less expensive or disruptive one. A worker who requests a private office for concentration difficulties may receive noise-cancelling headphones and a desk move instead, if those adjustments are effective.

A compliance manager at a healthcare staffing agency received an accommodation request from a placed phlebotomist who had developed carpal tunnel syndrome and could not perform repetitive wrist movements for extended periods. She worked with the client hospital and an occupational therapist to identify a modified role covering patient preparation and sample labelling rather than high-volume blood draws. The client agreed to the modified assignment. The worker continued in employment, the agency avoided an unfair dismissal claim, and the client retained an experienced team member who knew their processes.

Reasonable Accommodation in Practice

A field operations director at a light-industrial staffing agency received a request from a warehouse operative with a diagnosed anxiety disorder who needed a quieter workspace and advance notice of schedule changes rather than being assigned to shifts ad hoc. She assessed the client's site - a large distribution centre with a quieter picking zone - and negotiated with the client to assign the worker a fixed zone and provide two weeks' advance notice on any schedule changes. Cost to the client: minimal. Cost to the agency: one additional administrative step in the scheduling process. The alternative - ignoring the request and dismissing the worker when performance suffered - would have generated an employment tribunal claim with a potential award of several thousand pounds plus legal costs.