Short answer
EU law does not apply one accommodation test to all four situations. Disability attracts an express duty under : the employer must take effective, case-specific measures unless they impose a disproportionate burden. That can include changed hours, equipment, premises, duties or, where a suitable vacancy exists, reassignment.
Religion or belief has no equivalent general accommodation article. A workplace rule may instead be direct or indirect discrimination. A neutral rule that disadvantages a religion must pursue a legitimate aim and be appropriate and necessary; an employer’s preference or a customer complaint is not enough.
Pregnancy is governed by stronger sex-equality and health-and-safety rules. Where work presents a relevant risk, the sequence is temporary adjustment, transfer and, if neither is feasible or can reasonably be required on substantiated grounds, leave. Less favourable treatment because of pregnancy or maternity is sex discrimination.
Carers generally have rights to specified leave and to request flexible working under . In 2025, however, the Court of Justice held that reasonable accommodation may also be owed to an employee providing primary care to a disabled child. National implementing law determines the procedure and remedy and may provide stronger rights.
Disability: an individual duty to remove workplace barriers
Article 5 of Directive 2000/78 states the operative rule:
“employers shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment, or to undergo training, unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer.” —
The employer should identify the barrier, understand the worker’s functional needs and assess measures that would make participation effective. Recital 20 lists adaptations to premises and equipment, working-time patterns, task distribution, training and integration resources.
The duty is not unlimited. Directive 2000/78 does not require retention of a person who is not competent, capable and available to perform the essential functions of the job after reasonable accommodation. Nor must an employer invent a job. But dismissal is not the first step if another effective measure is reasonably available.
In , the Court held that accommodation may require reassignment:
“the possibility of assigning a disabled person to another job is only available where there is at least one vacancy that the worker in question is capable of holding”. —
The employer should therefore consider real vacancies for which the worker has the necessary competence, capability and availability. A transfer may be disproportionate, but it cannot be rejected merely because it was not the worker’s original post.
In Zirvatta, C-597/24, the Court held that a general transfer-priority scheme which ignores individual needs is not itself Article 5 accommodation. EU law did not require equal priority for interprovincial transfers; the separate case-specific duty remained.
What makes the burden disproportionate?
The answer is contextual, not a fixed monetary threshold. Recital 21 and HR Rail identify the financial and other costs, the organisation’s scale and financial resources, and the availability of public funding or other assistance. Article 5 also says a burden is not disproportionate when Member State disability-policy measures sufficiently remedy it.
A credible assessment should record:
- the barrier and the practical benefit expected from each measure;
- direct cost and material operational effects, not assumptions about inconvenience;
- the employer’s resources and organisation as a whole;
- grants, insurance, public support or assistive services that reduce the net burden;
- whether the measure is temporary, reversible or capable of a trial period; and
- less costly alternatives, including working-time changes or a suitable vacancy.
The label “unreasonable” does not prove anything. Evidence should connect the proposed adjustment to actual cost, staffing, safety or essential-function consequences. Organisational resources matter, but available support and alternatives must still be considered.
Religion or belief: proportionality, not a parallel Article 5 duty
Directive 2000/78 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion or belief, but reserves Article 5’s positive accommodation duty for disability. Religious requests—such as altered shifts, prayer breaks, dietary arrangements or religious dress—are therefore normally examined through direct and indirect discrimination, any applicable occupational-requirement exception and national law.
An apparently neutral rule can be indirectly discriminatory when it puts adherents of a religion at a particular disadvantage. The employer must then show a legitimate aim and means that are appropriate and necessary. In the joined , the Court warned:
“the mere desire of an employer to pursue a policy of neutrality – while in itself a legitimate aim – is not sufficient, as such, to justify objectively a difference of treatment indirectly based on religion or belief”. —
A neutrality policy needs a genuine employer need, consistent and systematic application, and a restriction limited to what is strictly necessary. Exploring a shift swap, a limited exception or a non-customer-facing assignment may reveal a less restrictive solution. That proportionality analysis can resemble accommodation in practice, but it should not be described as the express disability duty. National constitutional or employment law may protect religious freedom more strongly.
Pregnancy: adjustment, transfer, then protected leave
Pregnancy is not treated as a disability. defines discrimination to include less favourable treatment of a woman related to pregnancy or maternity leave. The Court’s judgment in established that refusing employment because of pregnancy is direct sex discrimination; financial consequences do not convert it into a permissible business choice.
Where a workplace assessment identifies a safety or health risk, sets a hierarchy. The employer must first temporarily adjust working conditions or hours. If that is technically or objectively infeasible, or cannot reasonably be required on duly substantiated grounds, the employer must move the worker to another job. Only if transfer fails on the same test may the worker be placed on leave for the necessary period under national law.
This is not Article 5’s open-ended disproportionate-burden test. It is a prescribed protective sequence. The employer should document the risk assessment and the substantiated reason for moving from one stage to the next, while preserving the employment and payment or allowance rights required by national implementation.
Caring: leave, a right to request—and a new disability link
Directive 2019/1158 requires Member States to provide five working days of carers’ leave per year and time off for urgent family force majeure, subject to national detail. Workers with children up to at least age eight, and carers, also have a right to request flexible working. The employer must respond within a reasonable time, consider both sides’ needs and give reasons for refusal or postponement. That is ordinarily a right to a reasoned process, not an automatic right to the requested arrangement.
The position is stronger in a defined disability-by-association situation. In , the Court held that indirect disability discrimination can protect a worker who provides the primary care required by a disabled child. Article 5 may then require reasonable accommodation for that employee:
“provided that that accommodation does not impose an unreasonable burden on that employer.” —
The judgment does not give every carer an unconditional schedule of choice. It links the duty to the disabled child’s required primary care and retains the burden limit. A changed work pattern, reduced hours or another suitable position may qualify, depending on effectiveness and feasibility.
A practical decision sequence
When a request arrives, first identify the correct legal route. Ask whether it concerns the worker’s disability, a religious practice, pregnancy-related risk, an ordinary caring request or care that enables a disabled child to receive required primary care. More than one route may apply.
Obtain only necessary information, discuss workable options and record why the measure is effective. A refusal should state the governing test and evidence. Check national implementation, collective agreements and public support; EU directives set only the floor.
Conclusion
The furthest-reaching EU duty is reasonable accommodation for disability, now including the specific disabled-child caring situation recognised in Bervidi. Religion is protected primarily through discrimination and proportionality analysis. Pregnancy triggers a safety-led sequence of adjustment, transfer and leave. Ordinary carers receive leave and a reasoned flexible-working process. Across all four, employers make the strongest decisions by identifying the correct regime, testing effective alternatives and proving concrete burdens rather than relying on labels.
Sources
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.