Special Treatment or Workplace Adjustments? How to Make Fair Decisions About Exceptions

One colleague always leaves early. Another works from home all the time, while everyone else has to be in the office two days a week. Someone never attends the Monday team meeting.

In situations like these, resentment in the team is the rule rather than the exception. The question is how long it simmers — and what you can do before the atmosphere turns sour.

There are two ways to be fair.

Equality gives everyone the same thing: the same rules, the same support, the same conditions. Equity gives each person what they need to work well, even when their starting points are different.

One point is often overlooked: working conditions are designed for the majority. Anyone who falls outside that norm is actively prevented from reaching their potential. Someone with ADHD who is expected to function in a neurotypical working world faces structural disadvantages: meeting cultures built around spontaneous discussion, open-plan offices that cause sensory overload, and appraisal systems that reward linear ways of working.

This is not an individual weakness. It is a design problem.

Fairness therefore does not mean treating everyone the same. It means enabling everyone to do their job well. Creating conditions in which every team member can perform at their best is not an act of generosity. It is a leadership responsibility.

Yes — and the law expressly provides for them.

The employment-law principle of equal treatment prohibits arbitrary disadvantage. It does not prohibit treating people differently when there is an objective reason to do so. Germany’s General Act on Equal Treatment (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, AGG) goes further: Section 5 expressly permits positive action to compensate for existing disadvantages.

A simple everyday example makes the point. A person with back problems is given a height-adjustable desk. Nobody calls that special treatment. The same principle applies when someone needs a different working structure because of a mental health condition, neurodivergence or a major personal crisis. The difference is that the reason is invisible — and that is precisely what sparks the disagreement.

Before considering a special arrangement, ask yourself one question: could this apply to everyone?

If it could, the special-treatment problem resolves itself instead of needing to be managed. Here are three examples from practice.

Captions in meetings — originally intended for a person with a hearing impairment that nobody knows about. They are also useful for people working in a language other than their first language, people with auditory processing difficulties, and anyone who finds it easier to concentrate by reading along than by listening.

Written summaries of decisions — intended for someone with ADHD. In practice, the whole team benefits.

A visible timer in meetings — helps not only neurodivergent people, but everyone who wants meetings to finish on time.

The principle is called universal design, or, more vividly, the kerb-cut effect. Dropped kerbs were built for wheelchair users. Today, they are used by parents with pushchairs, delivery workers with sack trucks and cyclists — people who would never have expected to benefit from them.

No diagnoses, no medical details, no private information. What you can do is make your position clear.

Three ways of handling this work in practice. When you cannot disclose anything: “There is a reason that I cannot share. I ask you to trust that we have thought this through carefully. If anyone feels they are being treated unfairly, please come directly to me.” When a supporting statement is available: “We have a professional recommendation that supports this arrangement.” Nothing more is needed. And if the person concerned agrees, they can share whatever they choose to share themselves.

Because their story belongs to them, not to you. Some people choose to be completely open and find that it works well. Others prefer simpler explanations: “It is for personal reasons” or “There is a recommendation on health grounds.” Both are entirely fine. What nobody should have to do is apologise for the arrangement.

And the most important point is not what you say, but how you say it. Your tone of voice, an eye-roll or an offhand comment suggesting that the arrangement is a nuisance reveals more than you think — and harms the very person you wanted to help.

Incidentally, the real problem is rarely the exception itself. It is the lack of transparency about how decisions are made. Teams that generally feel decisions are fair and their leaders think things through need far less explanation in individual cases.

A statement is useful when the adjustment will apply for a longer period, has a significant impact on working processes, or needs to be substantiated to third parties.

For many adjustments related to psychological strain — changes to working hours, a different allocation of duties or working-from-home arrangements — a medical or therapeutic statement can be obtained. It is comparable to the medical certificate for a height-adjustable desk. Medical and psychotherapy practices can issue these statements. When psychological strain is involved, the treating psychotherapist is often the more appropriate person to approach, because they have followed the person’s progress over several months.

What matters is what the statement says — and what it leaves out. A diagnosis does not have to be disclosed, and should not be. The following is enough: adjustment X is recommended for period Y to maintain the person’s ability to work. This is the level on which an employer can and must act.

A note on terminology, because it causes confusion in practice: what is needed is a supporting statement, not a formal expert report. The distinction is more than cosmetic. A statement contains a professional assessment and recommendation, and is established practice in workplace reintegration management (BEM) and rehabilitation. A formal expert report is a commissioned document for which a fee is charged. It is neither necessary nor customary for this purpose. Anyone asking a practice for a formal expert report will receive either a refusal or an invoice.

The person concerned obtains the statement, not you. As an employer, you must neither demand a diagnosis nor contact the treating practice directly. Alternatively, occupational health can also make a recommendation. Occupational health professionals are bound by confidentiality towards employees and report back to the company only on matters relating to their ability to work. In many cases, this is the simpler route.

Not every adjustment is feasible, and it is fine to say so.

It helps to separate the what from the how. I once led a remote team spread across Europe. Meeting in person for two strategy days once a quarter was non-negotiable for me, because that time builds something as a team that everyday remote work does not. What was open to discussion was how we did it: people working part-time or with young children took part in different ways.

This distinction makes conversations less confrontational. A “no” to the whole request sounds like rejection. “The goal is fixed; we can discuss how to get there” is an invitation.

And one boundary becomes clear on its own: if an adjustment places a significant, lasting burden on others in the team without anything to offset it, it is not sustainable. What is needed then is a different solution, not more patience.

The Workplace Adjustments Decision Tool guides you through the decision in nine steps, with a conversation guide for the individual and the team, and suggested wording for a supporting statement:

• Fairness does not mean sameness. It means enabling everyone to do their job well.

• Section 5 of Germany’s General Act on Equal Treatment (AGG) expressly permits positive action to compensate for disadvantages.

• First, check whether the adjustment could apply to everyone. Then there is no exception that needs explaining.

• When speaking to the team: no diagnoses, no details — but a clear position. The person concerned owns their story.

• A supporting statement does not disclose a diagnosis. It sets out the adjustment, its duration and how it relates to the person’s ability to work. It is a supporting statement, not a formal expert report.

• Separate the what from the how. The goal can be non-negotiable; the way to achieve it can be adapted.

In my book “Psychische Belastungen in Unternehmen erkennen und souverän begleiten”, you will find an in-depth professional exploration of the fairness principle: the equal-treatment paradox, neurodivergence at work, obtaining medical documentation, universal design, and sections on the roles of managers, HR professionals and colleagues without people-management responsibilities.

I develop and deliver training in Psychological First Aid in the Workplace, tailored to the German business context.

This article is not a substitute for an individual diagnostic assessment, professional advice or treatment. If you are affected yourself or are concerned about someone else, contact a medical professional or psychotherapist.