Why? It's not self-evident that as far as is necessary is the correct answer here. If the costs are far outstripping the value delivered by the employee, then at the very least it's become a question of disabled rights, and not a business decision.

There's clearly a limit to the reasonable accommodations we can expect of an employer.

I don't know if you realize what you've done here.

They said accommodate as far as is necessary. Necessary literally means that it is needed. There is a statement of correctness built into the word.

And you are objecting that necessary is needed? As in, wait wait a moment here. I think we should do less than necessary.

Arguing where to draw that line is one thing. But as worded, you appear to be advocating below minimum requirements.

You've misread me.

The question is as follows: how much accommodation should be made for an employee with a disability?

The answer is clearly not As much as is necessary to enable the employment of that person, regardless of the cost or circumstance.

pjc50 appeared to be suggesting exactly this answer, hence my reply.

> If the company wants employment to be a success, rather than a temporary period of grudging extraction of value through pain

As far as I can tell, most major employers operate like grudging extraction of value is their definition of success. Then well-meaning managers at smaller companies implement "standard practice" and are baffled when it causes problems.