In Ontario, thousands of public servants seeking flexible work arrangements have encountered significant barriers.

After the government announced that all public service employees would return to full-time in-person work as of January, more than 16,000 members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario requested alternative work arrangements.

Members of the latter union submitted more than 5,500 requests, but only about 250 have received responses. Approximately 90 per cent of those responses have been denials, prompting concerns about “blanket rejections.” This approach is concerning, considering that more than one-third of employed Canadians with disabilities report having an unmet need for workplace accommodation.

Against this backdrop, Ontario’s response to the 2026 FIFA World Cup is revealing. To ease anticipated traffic and transit disruptions, the province introduced temporary exemptions to its return-to-office mandate, giving managers discretion to approve remote work arrangements. As Ontario Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy explained at a June 3 news conference, “there’s flexibility, there’s allowance for circumstances and this is an example of one of those accommodations.”

The contrast is difficult to ignore. The province has shown that it can permit remote work when traffic congestion creates barriers. Why, then, do disabled workers continue to face resistance when seeking flexibility as an accommodation?

Our research offers insight into this question. We interviewed 50 Ontarians living with episodic disabilities — including multiple sclerosis, long COVID, lupus, mental health diagnoses and other illnesses characterized by fluctuating periods of wellness and impairment — about their experiences with work, accessibility and inclusion.

Participants repeatedly described skepticism toward flexible work arrangements. Their experiences reveal how systemic ableism continues to shape whose requests for flexibility are considered legitimate and whose are........

© The Conversation