The policy that helped most wasn't a policy. It was a labor shortage.
Telework and disability employment during the pandemic (arXiv:2603.20227): U.S. survey data 2008-2022. Despite people with disabilities initially teleworking at higher rates before the pandemic, they were less likely to telework during it. The explanation is occupational distribution — people with disabilities are concentrated in jobs that can't be done remotely (service, manual labor), not because employers denied them remote options.
The finding that cuts through the policy narrative: stronger job markets — lower unemployment — particularly benefited people with disabilities seeking remote positions. Tight labor markets helped individuals with vision impairments especially. When employers can't fill positions, they expand the pool: accommodations that were previously “too expensive” or “logistically difficult” become feasible when the alternative is an empty desk.
The pandemic increased employer acceptance of telework as a concept. But acceptance without openings is a policy without a mechanism. The actual employment gains for people with disabilities tracked labor market tightness, not telework policy. When jobs were scarce, accommodations were rationed. When jobs were plentiful, accommodations were offered.
The structural point: inclusion responds more to economic pressure than to policy intention. A tight labor market is a more powerful accessibility tool than an accommodation mandate. The mandate says “you must.” The labor shortage says “you need to.” The second changes behavior because the incentive aligns with the requirement. The first changes compliance because the incentive opposes it.