It’s National Disability Rights Awareness Month, which always brings me back to a question I’ve been asking for years: how is it that South Africa has one of the most progressive legal frameworks for employing people with disabilities, yet we still see so much confusion — and in some cases, resistance — around something as basic as reasonable accommodation?
The Employment Equity Act came into effect in 1998. The Code of Good Practice on the Employment of Persons with Disabilities has been around since 2015. Between the two, employers have a very clear roadmap for how to recruit, select, and support people with disabilities in the workplace. We’ve been consulting in this space for years, recruiting learners and employees, and supporting businesses with compliance and implementation. And still, almost daily, we see employers misunderstanding or avoiding their responsibilities.
This isn’t about bashing employers. Many are simply unsure. Some have been given incorrect advice. Others are trying to apply general HR rules to situations where the law and the Code actually require a different approach. The aim here is to unpack where things tend to go wrong, and offer practical guidance based on experience and the intent of the legislation.
What reasonable accommodation actually means
The Act and the Code define reasonable accommodation quite broadly. In short, it’s any change or adjustment that removes barriers and allows a person with a disability to perform the inherent requirements of the job. It’s not a favour. It’s not a special concession. And it’s not meant to be a negotiation over cost. It’s an obligation.
A few basics that employers often still get wrong:
- Accommodation is at the employer’s cost.
- You may not ask an applicant what their disability is. You may only ask what they need for the interview and, if they are the preferred candidate, what they will need to perform the job.
- You may make an offer of employment subject to reviewing accommodation requirements.
- If you withdraw the offer because you believe the accommodation is too onerous, the burden of proof rests with you to show that it is genuinely unreasonable.
None of this is new. It has been the standard for years.
Where the real problems show up
One issue dominates more than any other: time off for clinic visits and medication linked to a person’s disability.
This is the part of the conversation most employers struggle with. And it’s understandable — traditional HR policies weren’t designed with disability-related medical routines in mind. But that’s exactly why the concept of reasonable accommodation exists.
Here’s the reality many employers overlook
A large number of unemployed or entry-level candidates rely on public health facilities. A clinic appointment isn’t a neat 45-minute slot on a calendar. It’s usually a full-day commitment: transport, queues, waiting, medication collection. Compare that with someone who has their own transport and private medical care — they can pop out and be back in an hour.
Same need. Very different circumstances. And this is precisely where reasonable accommodation applies.
More and more employers are pushing these days into sick leave or annual leave. That’s not reasonable. Sick leave is for incapacity — you’re too unwell to perform your job. Disability is not an illness. A clinic visit for chronic medication is not an illness. It’s a support requirement that enables the person to do the job safely and consistently.
Treating these days as sick leave also has knock-on effects, especially for learners. Learners get limited leave as it is. Many workplaces close over December. If a learner has already used their leave for disability-related appointments, they end up taking unpaid leave during shutdown. That’s not a small thing. For learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, unpaid leave can mean losing income they literally depend on.
And this is where things become dangerous: if clinic visits cost someone leave they don’t have, people start missing appointments. They stop collecting medication. Their condition becomes unstable. They relapse. They choose job security over their health — something no disability-inclusive workplace should ever allow to happen.
What reasonable accommodation is meant to achieve
The goal of accommodation is simple: remove barriers so the person can do the job. Nothing more. Nothing less.
It’s also worth remembering that reasonable accommodation isn’t only a disability concept. It sits inside the Employment Equity Act as part of affirmative action — a mechanism designed to address historical and systemic disadvantage. In other words, it recognises that not everyone starts from the same place. When you’re dealing with a person with a disability, you’re dealing with both: the disadvantage created by the disability itself, and the disadvantage created by inequality.
That’s why the conversation about clinic visits matters so much. Taking disability-related appointments out of leave isn’t neutral; it pushes an entry-level worker with a disability even further back. If they’ve used all their leave on accommodation days, they end up with unpaid leave during shutdowns or busy periods. That’s an economic penalty layered on top of an existing disadvantage — the very thing the law is meant to correct.
For a learner, the inherent requirement of the job is to learn, participate, and complete the programme. Their role isn’t to keep the business running. Withholding reasonable accommodation from learners makes even less sense, yet they’re the ones most affected because of how leave is structured and because many rely on public health systems.
The purpose of accommodation isn’t to give someone special treatment. It’s to level the playing field so that both sets of disadvantages — the disability and the socio-economic context — don’t become barriers to employment, performance, or progression.
Why misinformation from providers makes it worse
We often see employers acting on bad advice. There are training providers, recruiters, and consultants who don’t understand the Code and guide employers incorrectly. That misinformation directly harms people with disabilities.
If a provider tells an employer that clinic days must come out of sick leave, or that they’re allowed to ask candidates to disclose their condition during the interview, or that accommodation is optional depending on “business need”, they are not only wrong — they are deepening barriers instead of removing them.
Employers deserve accurate guidance. Candidates deserve fair treatment. And the sector needs higher standards of practice.
What best practice looks like
In our experience, the employers who get this right usually follow a few simple principles:
• Ask only what you legally may:
- Do you require any adjustments for the interview?
- If you are the preferred candidate, what will you need to perform the role?
• Treat disability-related clinic and medication days as reasonable accommodation, not leave.
• Understand the lived realities of public transport and public healthcare.
• Build flexibility into attendance and scheduling where the role allows for it.
• Apply reasonable accommodation appropriately to learners, taking into account that their role is developmental and not an operational function
• Use credible providers who understand the Code and can give accurate, compliant guidance.
None of this is complicated. It just requires employers to approach disability with openness, curiosity, and a willingness to adapt — which is exactly what the legislation expects.
A final thought
South Africa’s legal framework around disability in employment is strong. The intent is clear. The tools exist. What we struggle with is practical implementation — especially in environments where HR policy hasn’t kept up with disability-inclusive thinking.
Disability Rights Awareness Month is a reminder that inclusion is never achieved through paperwork alone. It comes from the everyday decisions workplaces make: the questions they ask in an interview, the way they treat clinic days, the advice they rely on, the assumptions they challenge.
Reasonable accommodation is there to give people with disabilities a fair chance at employment and success. It shouldn’t be a fight. It should be a standard. And with the right guidance, it can be.
Beth Cooks is the CEO at Progression.
