Reasonable Accommodation Implementation Disputes — Japan

In Japan, reasonable accommodation (合理的配慮, gōriteki hairyo) in employment means measures taken to remove workplace barriers arising from an employee’s disability, so that the employee can receive equal treatment and effectively perform work. Under the Act on the Promotion of Employment for Persons with Disabilities, employers are required to provide necessary measures, subject to the exception of “undue burden” (過重な負担). The system applies to recruitment and employment, and the employer is expected to communicate with the employee about the appropriate measures.

1. Meaning of implementation disputes

A reasonable-accommodation implementation dispute can arise where:

• the employee requests a particular accommodation but the employer refuses it;
• the employer provides an accommodation but considers it insufficient;
• the employer argues that the requested measure creates an undue burden;
• the employee and employer disagree about the employee’s actual functional limitations;
• the employer fails to investigate the employee’s needs;
• the employer changes or withdraws an existing accommodation;
• the employer considers dismissal or retirement because the employee cannot perform the original job;
• the employer fails to consider reassignment or modified duties;
• communication or workplace-support arrangements are inadequate.

Japanese guidance emphasizes individualized discussion and mutual understanding, rather than treating reasonable accommodation as an automatic entitlement to every measure requested by an employee.

2. Statutory framework

The principal provisions are Articles 36-2 and 36-3 of the Act on the Promotion of Employment for Persons with Disabilities.

For recruitment, Article 36-2 requires an employer, following a request, to take necessary measures responding to the characteristics of the applicant’s disability, unless doing so would impose an undue burden.

For an already-employed disabled worker, Article 36-3 requires measures such as workplace facilities, assistance, or other necessary arrangements that facilitate the smooth performance of duties, again subject to the undue-burden exception.

The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's guidance also emphasizes:

1. identifying the workplace difficulty;
2. discussing possible accommodation with the worker;
3. determining the measure;
4. explaining the measure and the reason for it.

The examples in the guidelines are illustrative rather than exhaustive.

3. Major Case Laws

Case 1 — Tokai Railway (Retirement) Case

Osaka District Court, 4 October 1999

This case concerned an employee who became physically disabled after suffering a cerebral hemorrhage. He could not fully perform his previous inspection duties but wanted to return to work.

The employer treated him as having retired after the applicable leave period expired.

The court held that where the employment contract does not restrict the worker to a particular occupation, the employer must consider whether the employee can be placed in another realistically available position, taking into account:

• the employee's abilities;
• experience;
• position;
• size of the company;
• nature of its business;
• personnel allocation;
• possibility of transfer.

The court found that another position could realistically have been made available and held the retirement treatment invalid.

Importance: An employer cannot necessarily conclude that employment must end merely because the worker cannot return to the exact former job. Reassignment and modification of duties may need to be considered.

Case 2 — Katayama-gumi Case

Supreme Court, First Petty Bench, 9 April 1998

The Supreme Court considered an employee whose illness made performance of his original work difficult.

The Court recognized that where the employment contract does not specify a particular job, an employee may still be capable of performing another realistically available job. The employer therefore has to consider the actual possibility of alternative placement rather than focusing exclusively on the employee's inability to perform the original position.

Importance: This case provides an important background principle for later disability-accommodation disputes involving reassignment and return to work.

Case 3 — Sun Group Case

Otsu District Court, 24 March 2003

This case involved workers with intellectual disabilities who experienced serious workplace mistreatment, including violence, extremely poor working conditions and unpaid wages.

The court examined not only the employer's conduct but also the responsibilities of public bodies involved in supporting persons with intellectual disabilities.

The case is particularly relevant to the idea that disability employment cannot be treated simply as a formal hiring exercise. Workplace adaptation, monitoring and continuing support can be important to protecting disabled workers.

Importance: Reasonable accommodation involves the actual conditions under which a disabled person works, not merely the initial decision to employ the person.

Case 4 — A Supply (Intellectually Disabled Worker Death Accident) Case

Tokyo District Court, Hachioji Branch, 10 December 2003

An employee with an intellectual disability died after becoming trapped in industrial laundry equipment.

The court found that the employer knew that the worker could have difficulty responding appropriately to an unexpected problem. Consequently, the employer had a duty to establish an appropriate system of instruction and supervision for the worker.

The case is important because it recognized that ordinary workplace safety measures may not be sufficient where an employee's disability creates specific and foreseeable risks.

Importance: Accommodation may include individualized supervision, instructions and safety systems.

Case 5 — Toshiba (Depression/Dismissal) Case

Supreme Court, Second Petty Bench, 24 March 2014

The employee developed depression after excessive workload and was eventually dismissed following leave.

The Supreme Court held that an employer's duty to protect an employee's health does not necessarily disappear simply because the employee has not expressly disclosed all medical information. Where the employer is in a position to recognize deterioration in the employee's health, it may need to take measures such as reducing workload.

The Court also treated mental-health information as highly private information and rejected reducing damages merely because the employee had not voluntarily disclosed certain medical details.

Importance: In implementation disputes, an employer cannot always defend itself simply by saying, “The employee did not specifically ask us for accommodation.” Knowledge of the circumstances can be relevant.

Case 6 — Hanshin Bus (Work Accommodation) Case

Kobe District Court, Amagasaki Branch, 22 April 2014

The employee was a bus driver who had residual disabilities following surgery for a herniated disc.

Before his return to work, the employer and employee discussed accommodations including:

• assigning shifts beginning after noon; and
• generally avoiding overtime.

These arrangements continued for many years. Later, after the bus business was transferred to another company, the new employer attempted to discontinue the special working arrangements.

The court found that the accommodation had become an implied term of the original employment relationship and held that the subsequent arrangements purporting to eliminate it were invalid.

Importance: A long-standing accommodation agreed between employer and employee can potentially become part of the employee's contractual working conditions.

Case 7 — NEC (Japan Electric) Case

Tokyo District Court, 29 July 2015

This case concerned an employee diagnosed with Asperger syndrome who had been absent from work and subsequently sought reinstatement.

The court considered whether the employee could return to his previous work or another realistically available position.

The court recognized the relevance of the disability-employment legislation and reasonable-accommodation principles but also emphasized that reasonable accommodation does not require an employer to accept every possible working condition regardless of the circumstances. The statutory obligation is subject to the undue-burden limitation.

The court also considered whether the employer had sufficiently examined appropriate support and communication arrangements.

Importance: This case illustrates the tension between two principles:

Employee's side:
The employer must consider disability characteristics and possible accommodation.

Employer's side:
Reasonable accommodation does not automatically require unlimited modification of the employment relationship.

Case 8 — Man to Man Animo Case

Gifu District Court, 30 August 2022

This was a particularly relevant modern disability-employment case. The claimant had a higher brain dysfunction and obsessive-compulsive disorder and alleged that the employer, a special subsidiary company employing persons with disabilities, had breached its reasonable-accommodation obligations.

The court rejected the claim that the employer had breached its reasonable-accommodation duty.

Importance: The case demonstrates that the existence of a disability does not automatically establish an employer's liability. The court examines the actual accommodation requested, the employer's conduct, the workplace circumstances and whether the employer's measures were legally insufficient.

Case 9 — Mitsubishi UFJ Bank Case

Osaka District Court, 26 March 2025

This recent case involved an employee with a hearing impairment who had been employed through a disability-employment framework.

The dispute concerned workplace support, including communication and written assistance, as well as the employer's broader obligation to provide an appropriate working environment. The case was decided under, among other provisions, Article 36-3 of the Act on the Promotion of Employment for Persons with Disabilities and the Labour Contract Act.

Importance: The case demonstrates that modern reasonable-accommodation disputes may extend beyond a single physical adjustment to questions concerning communication support, workplace environment and continuing employer obligations.

4. Main legal issues in implementation disputes

A. Whether the requested accommodation is actually necessary

The first question is normally whether a particular workplace barrier results from the worker's disability.

For example:

• hearing impairment → written communication or captioning;
• visual impairment → accessible documents/software;
• mobility impairment → workplace accessibility;
• mental disability → appropriate communication, workload or scheduling arrangements;
• intellectual disability → clearer instructions and supervision.

The accommodation should be connected to the employee's actual functional difficulty.

B. Whether the employer properly discussed the request

Japanese policy places considerable emphasis on dialogue between the employee and employer.

The employer should not simply say:

“We cannot do that.”

Instead, it should examine whether an alternative measure could address the same workplace difficulty.

For example, if the employee requests a particular work schedule, the employer could examine whether another scheduling arrangement would achieve the same objective with less disruption.

MHLW guidance specifically emphasizes discussion and determination of appropriate measures rather than treating the listed examples as an exhaustive catalogue.

C. Undue burden

The most important employer-side limitation is 過重な負担 — undue burden.

An employer may argue that accommodation would impose an excessive burden because of factors such as:

• significant financial cost;
• substantial operational difficulty;
• effect on other employees;
• size and resources of the employer;
• nature of the business;
• availability of alternative measures.

However, merely describing an accommodation as “difficult” does not necessarily establish an undue burden.

The statutory provisions expressly make the reasonable-accommodation obligation subject to this exception.

D. Reassignment

Reassignment is particularly important when the employee cannot perform the original position.

Tokai Railway and Katayama-gumi demonstrate the importance of examining whether another realistically available job exists before concluding that employment must end.

The employer generally has to consider the actual circumstances of:

• company size;
• available positions;
• employee's qualifications;
• transfer practices;
• contractual job scope;
• feasibility of reassignment.

E. Withdrawal of an existing accommodation

The Hanshin Bus case is particularly relevant.

Where an accommodation has been provided for a long period and has become part of the employment relationship, abruptly withdrawing it may create a contractual dispute rather than merely a statutory disability-discrimination dispute.

F. Accommodation and dismissal

An employer may argue that an employee cannot perform essential duties.

But the cases show why the analysis should not stop there. Depending on the employment relationship, the employer may need to consider:

1. whether the employee can perform the original work with accommodation;
2. whether lighter or modified duties are possible;
3. whether another position is realistically available;
4. whether training or supervision could help;
5. whether the employee's disability explains the problematic conduct;
6. whether appropriate support was actually attempted.

The NEC case illustrates that accommodation has limits, but those limits must be examined rather than assumed.

5. Procedural implementation model

A legally safer implementation process can be understood as follows:

Step 1 — Identify the disability-related barrier
↓
Step 2 — Consult the employee
↓
Step 3 — Identify possible accommodations
↓
Step 4 — Examine alternative measures
↓
Step 5 — Assess operational and financial burden
↓
Step 6 — Consult occupational physician/support institution where appropriate
↓
Step 7 — Decide and explain the accommodation
↓
Step 8 — Implement it
↓
Step 9 — Review whether it actually works

MHLW guidance expressly emphasizes consultation, determination of measures and explanation to the employee.

6. Employer's common defenses

In litigation, employers may rely on arguments such as:

• No specific request was made.
• The requested measure was unnecessary.
• Another accommodation was sufficient.
• The measure would create an undue burden.
• The employee could not perform the essential duties.
• No suitable alternative position existed.
• The accommodation would substantially interfere with business operations.
• The employer was unaware of the disability-related difficulty.

The strength of these arguments depends on the individual facts. The Toshiba case, for example, shows that lack of a formal employee request is not necessarily decisive where the employer could reasonably recognize the employee's deteriorating condition.

7. Employee's common arguments

Employees may argue that:

• the employer knew about the disability;
• the employer failed to discuss accommodation;
• the employer did not investigate alternatives;
• the accommodation was withdrawn without adequate justification;
• the employer relied on the disability itself rather than actual job performance;
• reassignment was not considered;
• workplace support was inadequate;
• the alleged “undue burden” was not properly demonstrated.

8. Overall legal significance

Japanese reasonable-accommodation law combines statutory disability-employment obligations with established labour-law principles concerning good faith, safety, reassignment and employment continuation.

The older cases are particularly important because they developed principles concerning disabled workers before the current statutory reasonable-accommodation provisions became effective. Modern cases such as Man to Man Animo and Mitsubishi UFJ Bank show how disputes increasingly involve the statutory reasonable-accommodation framework itself.

A key practical point is that reasonable accommodation is individualized. There is no universal accommodation that every employer must provide. The legality of implementation normally depends on the employee's disability-related difficulty, the requested measure, alternatives considered, dialogue between the parties, the employer's circumstances, and whether the measure would constitute an undue burden.

MHLW's most recent published statistics also show that these disputes remain practically significant: for FY2025, Hello Work received 631 consultations concerning disability discrimination and reasonable accommodation, while applications for labour-dispute mediation increased to 15.