Reasonable accommodation beyond disability: an inclusive equality approach through the organisation of the enterprise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this contribution, the Authors aim to examine whether it is possible to envision an extension of the obligation of reasonable accommodation, imposed on private employers, beyond the factor of disability. The analysis, conducted through a vertical comparison of the Italian, Polish, and Turkish legal systems, is carried out by highlighting some measures of “adjustment” that are already recognised to protect workers against two other factors of potential discrimination: religion and family care responsibilities. The conclusion is that, currently, such an obligation does not appear to be conceivable. However, this research provides an opportunity to propose a practical solution to the challenges of balancing the multiple interests involved in the concrete implementation of such forms of “accommodation”. Specifically, the suggested idea is to formalise requests for reasonable accommodation (even beyond disability) by leveraging the experience of organisational models for managing business processes, which have already been tested in other contexts. Parole chiave Discriminazione, Parità di trattamento, Accomodamenti ragionevoli, Religione, Responsabilità familiari, Caregivers Keywords Discrimination, Equality, Reasonable accommodation, Religion, Family responsibilities, Caregivers discrimination other than disability. Scholars’ analyses of the American and Canadian systems are manifold. See, among others: E.BRIBOSIA,J.RINGELHEIM,I.RORIVE, Reasonable, cit., pp. 139-150. 146 The Constitution of the World Health Organization. 147 As expressed in the repeatedly cited Article 6, para. 2, lett. (d) of Directive 89/391/EEC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".