A reasonable accommodation is an adjustment made in a system 
to accommodate or make fair the same system for an individual based on a
 proven need. That need can vary.   Accommodations can be religious, 
physical, mental or emotional, academic, or employment related and are 
often mandated by law. Each country has its own system of reasonable 
accommodations. The United Nations use this term in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, saying refusal to make accommodation results in discrimination. It defines a "reasonable accommodation" as:
... necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms;
Canada
In Canada equality rights, as set out in provincial and federal anti-discrimination laws and in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, require that accommodation be made to various minorities. (The origin of the term reasonable accommodation in Canadian law is found in its labour law jurisprudence, specifically Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Simpsons-Sears Ltd,
 [1985] 2 SCR 536, and is argued to be the obligation of employers to 
change some general rules for certain employees, under the condition 
that this does not cause "undue hardship".)
Quebec
In Quebec, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
 and the provincial charter of human rights, politicians engaged in 
"values" clarifications on accommodation from at least 2007. In that 
time, various ideologies attempted to impose onto Quebecers definitions 
of values, without consensus or even legislative success.
 The question on what was and will be the national identity has been 
contested, such as the court decision on the wearing of the Sikh kirpan in Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys.
The municipal council of the town of Hérouxville passed a "code of conduct"
 for residents. It provided details of expectations of behaviour, and 
defined practices of other countries that were not acceptable in the 
town, such as stoning women or burning them alive, and female genital mutilation.
 The code of conduct also explained common practices in Canadian 
culture. It said that carrying a weapon to school (a reference to the Sikh ceremonial kirpan), covering one's face (some particular forms of the Muslim veil),
 and making accommodation for prayer in public schools would not be 
permitted. It attests that "Our people eat to nourish the body, not the 
soul," in reference to Jewish and Muslim dietary laws, and that health-care professionals "do not have to ask permission to perform blood transfusions."
This code of conduct was developed as the town and province 
absorbed more immigrants from other cultures. Other cultural questions 
arose. In 2007 a YMCA set up clouded windows
 to shield ultra-Orthodox Jews who had complained that youngsters could 
see girls and women in gym attire. There have been questions about 
whether voters are allowed to fill out and submit ballots while clothed 
in a niqab or burka,
 which can hide identity. A Muslim spokesman said that women are always 
required to show identity for public purposes, so it was a question 
raised unnecessarily.
While most residents in Quebec have identified as Catholic on 
surveys, the province has become increasingly secular, with declining 
rates of church attendance. The provincial government has worked to 
reach an accommodation with the Roman Catholic Church on guidelines for 
conversion or disposal of underused churches.  The church has allowed 
local parishes to work with municipalities to develop the buildings as 
community centres, for example, rather than for private condominium 
construction.
Judaism
In 2007, Benjamin Rubin, a forward with the Gatineau Olympiques ice hockey team, refused to play several key matches because they fell on a Jewish holiday.  Some claimed the Jews would end up forcing the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League
 to reschedule all their matches on Fridays and Saturdays. Rubin and the
 Olympiques came to an agreement, and "he will only miss a handful of 
games." He has since left the team.
Islam
In 2007 Elections Canada ruled that Muslim women wearing the niqab (veil) or burka
 would be allowed to vote in all upcoming national elections, 
by-elections and referendums without showing their faces to an Elections
 Canada official.
 The same policy applies to all Canadians under federal Bill C-31, in 
that photo identification is not strictly required if two other pieces 
of acceptable official identification are provided, or another voter 
vouches for them. The proclamation created social animosity towards 
Muslims in Quebec. Premier Jean Charest of Quebec described this as a bad decision. He noted that Quebec's National Assembly had voted to forbid Muslim women from voting if they would not reveal their faces as a confirmation of identity.
The national Conservative government challenged Elections Canada to review this decision. The federal Liberals and the Bloc Québécois
 also requested such a reversal, to demand that all voters be required 
to show their faces in order to vote, even those whose faces are 
normally covered for religious reasons. They joined other federal and 
provincial politicians from Quebec who attacked the decision.
Sarah Elgazzar, an advocate for the Canadian Council on American–Islamic Relations
 in Montreal, declared that it is improbable that very many Muslim women
 will have hidden faces when voting. Elgazzar insisted that women using 
niqabs usually take them off to distinguish themselves and do not sport 
them for photo identification. This fact was echoed by Salam Elmenyawi 
of the Muslim Council of Montreal.
Media exposure
There
 was extensive coverage of related issues in Quebec's news media in 2006
 and 2007. Some analysts attributed this more to competition among media
 than a measure of citizen concern. The premier of Quebec
 declared several non-negotiable values, such as "the equality of women 
and men; the primacy of French; the separation between the state and 
religion".
The conservative political party Action démocratique du Québec
 (ADQ) appeared to gain support from these debates. It formed the 
official opposition in the provincial legislature for one term from 2007
 to 2008, until the increasing prominence of the global economic crisis 
relegated reasonable accommodation to an issue of less importance.
Employment integration
A 2006 examination from Statistics Canada demonstrated that Quebec had the highest newcomer unemployment rate in Canada.
  The newest immigrants endured an unemployment ratio of 17.8 per cent 
in 2006, or almost three times the 6.3 per cent ratio of native-born 
help.  In contrast, joblessness among current newcomers in Ontario was 
11 per cent contrasted with 4.4 per cent among the Canadian born. In 
British Columbia, the numbers were 9.5 per cent and 3.7 per cent, 
respectively.
The study's coauthor, Danielle Zietsma, was reported to have 
cautioned that she and her colleagues would need some time to conduct 
the analyses necessary to explain the basis of these findings. The Montreal Gazette
 columnist Jay Bryan suggested that Quebec was exceptional in the degree
 to which it imposed hurdles on new immigrants seeking employment in the
 province, including "the devaluation of allegedly inadequate foreign 
credentials, language tests that have little to do with professional 
performance, and 'Canadian experience' requirements that serve as an 
all-purpose excuse to lock out job applicants who don't already have a 
job."
 However, the column reported that the study had found similar numbers 
of surveyed immigrants had indicated that the demand for Canadian 
experience (26 per cent) or foreign credentialing and work experience 
recognition problems (21 per cent) as principal barriers to employment.
Political reaction
Former leader of the Parti Québécois André Boisclair
 noted, "We're not talking about reasonable accommodation [if] it has 
nothing to do with public services", Boisclair said. At the same time, 
Boisclair blamed Premier Jean Charest
 for pandering to Quebecers who balk at adjustments made for immigrants 
in civil society. Charest declined to defend them when girls wearing hijab were prohibited from soccer and tae kwon do, and when prejudiced remarks were offered about Jews.
Mario Dumont, leader of the Action démocratique du Québec (ADQ) said in an interview in La Presse
 that Quebec needs more immigration for economic and demographic 
reasons, but that he believes that Quebec had met its limits of 
immigrant acculturation, and that any further increase in rates of 
immigration would create ghettos.
 (At present, the province accepts a smaller percentage of newcomers 
than elsewhere in Canada.)
He criticized Charest for a plan to raise such levels when the Liberal 
government has cut funds for integration of newcomers into French 
culture. "We're a linguistic minority...and immigrants need 
francization", Dumont said. "It's quite a challenge."
Then Parti Québécois leader Pauline Marois
 said that Quebec should assume all control over its immigration, not 
the 60 per cent that it has now under a bilateral agreement with the 
government of Canada. She also said the province should make the message
 clear to immigrants that Quebec is a francophone "state", not 
officially bilingual as are the federal government and Quebec's 
neighbouring province New Brunswick. 
Marois said that Quebec is in need of more immigrants, to offset a
 low birth rate for future labour needs. She further believes that 
Quebec is a francophone state in which the rights of the anglophone minority are respected, and where all the inhabitants live in French.
 Charest criticized his political adversaries in the provincial 
legislature, and blamed them for encouraging "intolerance" in the 
continuing controversy. He published an open letter in regional dailies,
 saying he is worried the province's image of openness will diminish 
outside Quebec. 
Dumont's statements about immigration, he said, led to the passing of a code of conduct by the town of Hérouxville that notified Muslims that face veils or stoning women would not be accepted there.
Bouchard–Taylor Commission
Premier Jean Charest, citing several instances of "unreasonable" accommodation, advised the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec
 to appoint a two-man commission in February 2007, to investigate the 
issue of reasonable accommodation, and report back by 31 March 2008. The
 formal title for the commission is the Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences, and it is sometimes called the Bouchard–Taylor Commission.  Its commissioners are professors Charles Taylor, a well-known federalist and philosopher, and Gérard Bouchard, a historian and sociologist. Bouchard said in an interview that sovereignty
 was the solution to calm Franco-Quebecers' cultural insecurity. 
Co-chair Taylor stated, however, that Quebecers need to demonstrate the 
"openness and generosity of spirit" that majorities should have towards 
minorities.
The commission conducted hearings in various Quebec regions. The 
committee listened to individuals, organizations, and so-called experts 
on Quebec identity, religion, and integration of cultural communities (minority groups).
 Before formal proceedings began, Bouchard and Taylor said they heard in
 focus groups across the province that there was insecurity among 
Quebec's traditional ethnic French population. They believed that 
hearings would help with educating the public; for instance, they 
thought the perception of Muslim influence was higher among some groups 
than is justified by data.
 Taylor underlined that Quebecers need to show an "openness and 
generosity of spirit" for 'cultural communities. As well, the report 
recommended that accommodation be made in public schools to allow 
students who want to wear religious attire in class, such as the hijab, 
kippah or turban, to do so.
The Bouchard–Taylor report recommended that judges, Crown 
prosecutors, prison guards and police officers refrain from wearing any 
religious attire or symbols. "We believe that a majority of Quebecers 
accept that a uniform prohibition applying to all government employees 
regardless of the nature of their position is excessive, but want those 
employees who occupy positions that embody at the highest level the 
necessary neutrality of the state ... to impose on themselves a form of 
circumspection concerning the expression of their religious 
convictions", Bouchard and Taylor wrote.
The commission also recommended that the crucifix in the National Assembly, placed above the Speaker's chair by Premier Maurice Duplessis, be removed to another part of the building. This is a recommendation that successive governments have rejected.
In 2017, In the aftermath of the Charter of Quebecois Values
 debate, Taylor stated that he no longer supports that opinion, and said
 it was misinterpreted by many politicians. The Bouchard–Taylor report 
deliberately did not include teachers, civil servants and health-care 
professionals from those that should be forbidden to wear religious 
symbols.
United States
In
 the United States, federal law requires that reasonable accommodations 
be made for employment, education, housing, courts, and public venues. 
Employment
The Americans With Disabilities Act, known as ADA, was signed into law on 26 July 1990. It carried forward material from Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
 'A reasonable accommodation' is defined by the US Department of Justice
 as "any modification or adjustment to a job or the work environment 
that will enable a qualified applicant or employee with a disability to 
participate in the application process or to perform essential job 
functions. Reasonable accommodation also includes adjustments to assure 
that a qualified individual with a disability has rights and privileges in employment equal to those of employees without disabilities."
In September 2012, Home Depot company agreed to pay $100,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, for the alleged failure to provide a reasonable accommodation for a cashier with cancer at its Towson, Maryland, store, and then for purportedly firing her because of her condition.
State and local government services, programs, and activities
Title
 II of the ADA provides that "no qualified individual with a disability 
shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in 
or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a 
public entity, or be subject to discrimination by any such entity".
 State and local governments must provide reasonable accommodations to 
ensure such access, unless a fundamental alteration would result.
Public accommodations
Title
 III of the ADA requires private businesses open to the public and 
commercial facilities to provide reasonable accommodations to people 
with disabilities to ensure that they have equal access to goods and 
services.
Housing
Under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968,
 as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, codified in the 
United States Code at 42 USC §§ 3601–3619, and commonly known as the 
Fair Housing Act, virtually all housing providers must make reasonable 
accommodations in their rules, policies, practices, or services under 
certain circumstances.  A reasonable accommodation must be granted when 
such an accommodation is necessary to afford a prospective or existing 
tenant with a disability an opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling
 (including but not limited to apartments, single family homes, and 
other types of private and public housing) to the same extent as a 
person who does not have that disability.  The Fair Housing Act covers 
"dwellings", and in many situations that term encompasses such 
non-traditional housing as homeless shelters and college dormitories. It
 bears noting that in regard to larger dwellings such as apartment 
buildings, the right to a reasonable accommodation under the Fair 
Housing Act requires that housing providers grant a requested reasonable
 accommodation that is necessary to enable a disabled tenant to enjoy an
 indoor or outdoor common area to the same extent as a non-disabled 
tenant enjoys such areas. 
In regard to reasonable accommodations, there is no requirement 
that a housing provider initiate the reasonable accommodation process; 
the Fair Housing Act contemplates that a tenant will approach his or her
 landlord with a request for a change in the landlord's policies that 
will reasonably accommodate the tenant's disability.  For example, a 
prospective or actual tenant whose disability requires him to use 
crutches may request a reasonable accommodation in the form of an 
assigned parking space close to the entrance of his or her apartment 
building.  If the disability is of a kind covered by the Fair Housing 
Act, and there is a genuine relationship between the requested 
accommodation and the disability, and granting the reasonable 
accommodation would not fundamentally alter the nature of the landlord's
 operations or impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the
 landlord, then the landlord must grant the requested reasonable 
accommodation or else find himself in violation of the Fair Housing Act 
and liable for substantial civil money penalties as well as payment to 
the disabled person for the injury suffered by him or her.
The Fair Housing Act is enforced by the US Department of Housing 
and Urban Development (HUD), whose regulations governing reasonable 
accommodations are found at 24 CFR § 100.204.  Sometimes it is easy to 
tell when (for example) a tenant has a disability and the tenant's 
reasonable accommodation request must be granted; other times it is not 
quite so apparent that a tenant suffers from a recognized disability.  
But a housing provider has an obligation to engage in an interactive 
process in order to honestly try to figure out whether the requested 
accommodation is reasonable and must be granted.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development and the US 
Department of Justice have issued a joint statement to provide guidance 
on the concept of reasonable accommodation.
 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended 
(including the amendments made by the Americans with Disabilities 
Amendments Act of 2008), overlaps with the Fair Housing Act in its 
coverage of public housing.
  As noted on HUD's website: "Public housing was established to provide 
decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the 
elderly, and persons with disabilities." Over a million US households live in public housing.
United Kingdom
The
 laws of England, Wales, and Scotland require employers to make 
reasonable accommodations for disabled employees, initially under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and now under the Equality Act 2010. Failure to do so can give rise to a complaint by an employee to an employment tribunal.