RTO Mandates, Accommodation, and the Risks of Managerial Discretion
- Rika Sawatsky
- Jan 7
- 3 min read
Ontario Premier Doug Ford recently summarized his approach to return-to-office (RTO) as follows:
“If they can’t make it in, they’re going to have to work within the bureaucracy… they all have their managers and we just look forward to getting everyone back.”
If your organization’s RTO strategy sounds like this, the risk is not limited to human rights complaints. You are also likely losing valuable employees to leaves of absence, disengagement, and resignation.
Leaving accommodation to “the bureaucracy” and individual managers is not a neutral approach. Real-world cases increasingly show that it disproportionately disadvantages women and people with disabilities, and other equity-deserving groups, even where accommodations technically exist on paper.
Why RTO Accommodation Breaks Down in Practice
In theory, employees who cannot comply with RTO mandates can request accommodation. In practice, several predictable failures occur:
Employees don’t ask at all
Many employees—particularly women, caregivers, and people with disabilities—do not request accommodation due to fear of retaliation, stigma, or career consequences.
Accommodation is granted, but exclusion follows
Some employees receive accommodations but are later sidelined from opportunities, informal networks, or advancement—sometimes intentionally, often not.
Managers act as gatekeepers
Front-line managers may screen requests based on personal beliefs about legitimacy, sincerity, or operational inconvenience.
Legal standards are misapplied
Requests that reach decision-makers may not be assessed using the correct legal framework. For example, family-status accommodation tests vary by jurisdiction, creating particular risk for multi-jurisdictional employers.
The Core Problem: Discretion Without Structure
Following the Premier’s comments, a Treasury Board spokesperson stated that managers have “clear guidelines” for assessing accommodation requests.
Guidelines alone are not enough.
For accommodation frameworks to work, they must be specific, structured, and legally grounded. Where discretion is broad, bias proliferates—even among well-intentioned managers.
Human rights law does not focus on intent. It focuses on impact. A process that systematically disadvantages protected groups will attract liability regardless of good faith.
Common Managerial Myths That Create Legal Risk
In my experience, several recurring myths drive flawed accommodation decisions under RTO mandates.
Myth #1: “If they came in every day before the pandemic, they can do it again.”
A great deal can change in five years. Disabilities may arise or worsen. Family status needs evolve. And some employees were struggling pre-pandemic but felt unable to ask for accommodation at the time.
Past compliance does not negate present rights/needs.
Myth #2: “Accommodation requests are just a way to avoid RTO.”
Bad-faith requests exist, but they are the exception. Clear eligibility criteria and documentation requirements are far more effective than screening based on suspicion.
Assuming dishonesty at the outset discourages legitimate requests and increases legal exposure.
Myth #3: “Surely someone else can handle childcare or caregiving emergencies.”
Human rights guidance, including from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, cautions employers against probing internal family arrangements at the screening stage.
Case law recognizes many valid—and deeply personal—reasons why an employee may not rely on another family member, including violence, disability, substance use, unreliability, or safety concerns. Employers should not require disclosure of such information unless there is a good-faith reason to doubt the request.
The Talent Risk Employers Often Miss
Employees who encounter these barriers do not always file complaints. More often, they:
Take medical or stress leaves
Reduce engagement
Quietly exit the organization
By the time legal risk materializes, the talent loss has already occurred.
What Actually Works: Reducing the Need for Accommodation Requests
If you need to proceed with an RTO mandate, then research shows that clear, structured accommodation frameworks help mitigate these risks. Work with your lawyer to set up clear criteria for managers to apply so that biases (even from well-meaning managers) don't screen out legitimate requests.
But it's also worth evaluating the need for a strict RTO mandate as well. Research consistently shows that organizations access more of their talent pool when they build baseline flexibility into how work is structured, rather than relying on individualized exceptions.
When flexibility is normalized:
Fewer employees need to disclose disabilities or caregiving responsibilities
Managers rely less on discretion
Human rights risk decreases
Retention and engagement improve
The most effective RTO strategies are not those with the strongest mandates but those that design work in a way that fewer people need accommodation in the first place.
Interested In Creating Clear Criteria for Your Managers?
Many workplace risks show up as individual issues—an accommodation request, a conflict, a complaint—but the root cause is often unclear systems and unchecked discretion.
I work with organizations to address those issues upstream by designing processes managers can actually use, especially in areas like accommodation, safety, and responding to harm at work. If that’s something you’re grappling with, I’d be happy to talk. Please reach out!
