Given that 15–20% of the world’s population is neurodiverse (e.g., has ADHD, dyslexia, and/or autism; DCEG Staff, 2022), understanding how to better include these individuals in the workplace is both a social justice and a strategic imperative for organizations. Lefevre-Levy et al.’s (2023) discussion of the latter justification provides ample evidence as to why neurodiversity can benefit individual outcomes and organizational performance. We discuss the limitations of using organizational performance gains as a primary justification for including neurodiverse people in the workplace, which we refer to as the “business case.” Recognizing that the business case can be a useful tool of persuasion to bring hesitant decision makers to the table, we review research on the boundary conditions and limitations of the business case. We caution that relying exclusively on the business case can have three important drawbacks: (a) neurodiversity may not always result in performance gains, making the business case a risky wager; (b) neurodiverse people may be dissuaded from joining organizations that view their inclusion primarily as a business imperative; and (c) characterizing neurodiverse people as especially capable or superpowered could detract from inclusion goals by othering and commodifying them. We discuss these issues before presenting what we perceive to be a promising complement to the business case for neurodiversity. Specifically, we draw from principles of universally accessible design (Story, 2001) to suggest that making workplaces accessible and welcoming to neurodiverse people can benefit neurodiverse and non-neurodiverse employees alike.