The slippery slope is a familiar one for any HR pro. Company values talented employee, stretches to make accommodation, then things go south. Attendance is usually the issue front and center, and due to the knowledge of the disability in question, the accommodation that was made, etc, things fester. Decisions aren't made. The employee states that yes, they didn't show up as expected, but that's part of the condition in question.Good thoughts. The biggest problem is that of going to extremes which are often encouraged by the way the legal system works. The larger the consequences of extreme measures the more likely people will want to avoid them.
Of course, not coming to work was never part of the reasonable accommodation. But the accommodation provides an official awareness of the condition/disability in question, so dealing with the situation is now a legal mess that takes time.
That's called a slippery slope where I come from. Or "holding the bag".
Which means the next time around, willingness to make a reasonable accommodation from the hiring manager or HR pro is much more limited. There's a business to run.
Note that I am aware of many, many talented individuals with disabilities who are among the best employees at their company. But the slippery slope outlined above happens more than anyone wants to admit, which is why you see so much resistance on the accommodation front.
I think most people would like to see reasonable accommodations. Often bureaucracies get tied to their normal procedures and could use more flexibility.
It is a reality that if those who are part of a interest group you care about expand the demands to far then people will just choose to remove dealing with that group at all. It might not be fair but as you say people learn from their experiences. I think those who advocate a certain interest and don't speak out against abuses of that interest make a mistake. Without limiting the unreasonable measure people just learn to realize if they start down the slippery slope they will be stuck with unreasonable demands. So they will just seek to avoid it - even if that means denying those who wouldn't be unreasonable opportunities.
Another example of this type of slippery slope is when unions stop supporting what is in the interests of all workers and instead defend workers that are abusing all the other workers by not doing their job. I know my experiences have made me much less sympathetic to unions after I saw their behavior was to reward unreasonable behavior and punish the workers (most of them) that were trying to do a good job by making them carry along workers that were just abusing the system. Unions still have a place if they would just focus on providing value to workers but they seem to often think they need to defend anyone (no matter how unreasonable) if that person is against what to many unions see as their enemy - management. Unions should see that they need to protect workers not just from abuses by management but from abuses by other workers that are being unreasonable.
Related: Action Is More Important Than Sympathy - Society is being shaped for us while we are busy making other plans - Acting Consiterately