Second Circuit clarifies ADA Standard for Reasonable Accommodations
Employers in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont should take note of a recent Second Circuit decision holding that an employee may still be entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) even if they can perform the essential functions of their job without accommodation.
In Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, (2d Cir. Mar 25, 2025), a circuit court panel vacated a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Whitehall Central School District (“Whitehall”) on a failure-to-accommodate claim. The employee, a teacher who had a history of PTSD and was granted an accommodation by the district court in 2008, allowing her to take short breaks on campus during morning or afternoon “prep period” times, when she would otherwise not be responsible for supervising students. In 2016, a new policy prohibited teachers from leaving the campus during these times. Whitehall later permitted a morning break and, at times, an afternoon break when coverage was available.
The case focused on the 2019-20 school year, when the employee was assigned to supervise students during the time she would ordinarily take her afternoon break. She continued to take breaks without formal approval. This, she said, increased her anxiety because she was worried about violating school policies. She filed suit later, alleging Whitehall had failed to accommodate her disability in violation the ADA. The district court granted Whitehall summary judgment, reasoning that since the employee admitted in the proceedings that she was able to perform her job without the accommodation requested, she could not prove a required element of the claim.
The Second Circuit disagreed and stressed that the ADA doesn’t require an employee to demonstrate that an accommodation is needed–only that is reasonable. To establish a case under the ADA prima facie, an employee must demonstrate that: (1) Their employer is subject to ADA; (2) They were disabled as defined by the ADA; (3) They were otherwise qualified to do the essential functions of their jobs, with or without reasonable accommodations; and (4) Their employer refused to provide a reasonable accommodation. The Second Circuit held that the ability to perform the essential functions of the job without an accommodation does not foreclose an employee’s failure-to-accommodate claim. The statutory language protects those employees who can perform their job “with or without” accommodations and obligates employers, unless it would impose undue burdens, to provide reasonable accommodation. The court reiterated that the ADA was a remedial law that must be construed widely to eliminate discrimination towards individuals with disabilities. To say that an accommodation had to be necessary to be reasonable would be counter to this goal. The Second Circuit noted, however, that Whitehall could still raise other defences on remand. These include whether the employee had an eligible disability or whether the requested accommodations would have caused undue hardship.
An important takeaway for Second Circuit employer is that the ADA mandates them to consider and provide reasonable accommodations, even when an employee can perform their essential job functions without a one.
