Working Together

Take note, employers: if your decision to accommodate a qualified employee with a disability is solely based on necessity, you may be inviting unnecessary legal exposure.

On March 25, 2025, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (the appellate court for federal district courts in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont) clarified the scope of workplace protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on a failure-to-accommodate claim in Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District. According to the Second Circuit, the ADA does not require an employee to show that an accommodation is necessary—only that it is reasonable— and employers are obligated to provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.

Case Summary

The plaintiff is a high school math teacher diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) related to sexual assault and harassment that occurred in a past workplace. The teacher managed her condition with medication and psychiatric care. When her symptoms escalated in 2008, after consultation with her therapist in order to manage her condition she requested (and was granted) 15-minute breaks in the morning and afternoon periods when she was not responsible for overseeing students, which she used to compose herself away from the workplace.

In 2016, a new school administration prohibited teachers from leaving school grounds. When the teacher tried to take her 15-minute breaks to manage her condition, she was reprimanded. The administration told her that the documentation on file did not establish her right to an accommodation. After being denied the accommodations she had previously enjoyed, the teacher took paid sick leave, and leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), to attend an intensive outpatient program to get her PTSD and anxiety symptoms under better control.

When she returned from FMLA leave in 2017, the administration said she could take her morning break, but could only take an afternoon break during a study hall period when a librarian was available to watch her students. When the librarian was unavailable, she could not take a break.  

During the 2019-2020 school year, neither the school librarian nor any other employee was able to cover for the 15-minute period in the afternoon study hall, so the teacher took the breaks without permission. Because the teacher believed she was violating school policy by resorting to self-help, the breaks heightened her anxiety.

The teacher sued her employer in the Northern District of New York. She alleged that the school’s refusal to guarantee a 15-minute afternoon break each day violated the ADA. During the proceedings, the teacher acknowledged that she could perform the essential functions of her job without the breaks, albeit "under great duress and harm.”

The district court found that this admission was fatal to her claim, and entered judgment for the school. The district court concluded that because she was able to perform her job without an accommodation, she could not establish that “with reasonable accommodation, plaintiff could perform the essential functions of the job at issue.” The teacher appealed the decision to the Second Circuit.

The Court of Appeals’ Decision

The Second Circuit overturned the Northern District of New York’s decision that Ms. Tudor had not established a right to an accommodation, emphasizing that the ADA requires reasonable accommodations to support employees’ well-being and workplace inclusion, not just those necessary for job performance.

The Second Circuit observed that the ADA defines a “qualified individual” as “an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). The Second Circuit found that the district court was incorrect when it interpreted the language of the statute to mean that an employee who can perform the essential functions of the job without an accommodation cannot, as a matter of law, support a failure to accommodate claim.

Per the Second Circuit, “[u]nder a straightforward reading of the phrase ‘with or without,’ the fact that an employee can perform her job responsibilities without a reasonable accommodation does not mean that she must: she may be a ‘qualified individual’ entitled to reasonable accommodation even if she can perform the essential functions of her job without one.” In other words, the fact that a qualified disabled employee can perform the essential functions of their job without accommodation does not mean they must do so.

The Second Circuit determined that, absent undue hardship, an employer MUST offer a reasonable accommodation to an employee with a disability even if that employee is capable of performing the essential functions of her job either with or without the accommodation. The Second Circuit noted that the ADA is a well-established “remedial statute,” and must be interpreted broadly to fulfill its purpose of eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities. To say that the ADA only requires an employer to grant an accommodation when strictly necessary would contradict the purpose of the statute, which plainly requires employers to make “reasonable” accommodations. Of course, whether an accommodation is “reasonable” depends on the circumstances, and requires balancing the needs of the employer and the employee.

The Second Circuit held that accommodations that are not strictly necessary may still be reasonable and therefore required by the ADA. With this direction, the Second Circuit remanded the case back to the district court to resolve the remaining issues, namely, whether the requested accommodation was “reasonable” and whether it imposed an undue hardship on the employer.

Takeaways

This Second Circuit’s decision makes clear that there is no one-size-fits-all calculation for determining whether a workplace accommodation is reasonable and therefore required by the ADA. It is critically important that employers engage in the “interactive process” with employees to figure out their needs with respect to a requested accommodation. Whether an accommodation is “reasonable” under the particular circumstances will depend on numerous factors, including the particular condition, the employee’s job duties, and the business needs of the employer.

If you are confronted with issues concerning reasonable accommodation, whether you are an employer or an employee, you may wish to consult with an attorney for guidance. The attorneys in our Labor, Employment, and Employee Benefits practice regularly address accommodations issues.