The Second Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Second
Circuit”) recently decided Tudor v. Whitehall Central
School District, which changes the landscape of reasonable
accommodations, within the Circuit, under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The Second Circuit followed the
trend set by the First, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and
D.C. Circuits in holding that an employee with a disability may
qualify for a reasonable accommodation even if they can perform the
essential functions of their job without an accommodation.
Background:
Angel Tudor (“Tudor”), a teacher who worked for
Whitehall Central School District (“Whitehall”) for
nearly 20 years, had a longstanding history of post-traumatic
stress disorder (“PTSD”) following an incident of sexual
harassment and assault by a supervisor at a prior employer. The
PTSD caused severe psychiatric symptoms for which Tudor sought
psychiatric help and was prescribed several medications.
Whitehall initially granted Tudor an accommodation to take 15
minute breaks, however, after an administration change, a new
policy prohibited teachers from leaving campus during their prep
periods. After the new policy was implemented, Tudor was
reprimanded and told that the documentation on file was
insufficient to support a reasonable accommodation.
Accordingly, Tudor filed suit in the Northern District of New
York (“Northern District”) alleging that Whitehall’s
refusal to guarantee her a fifteen-minute afternoon break violated
the ADA. The Northern District granted summary judgment in favor of
Whitehall, finding that Tudor’s ability to perform the
essential functions of her job without an accommodation was fatal
to her failure to accommodate claim. Tudor subsequently filed an
appeal with the Second Circuit.
The Second Circuit’s Decision:
The Second Circuit has consistently held that in order to
establish a failure to accommodate claim under the ADA, an employee
must show that with a reasonable accommodation, they would be able
to perform the essential functions of their job. In Tudor,
the Second Circuit found that the Northern District erroneously
interpreted the ADA to mean that an employee who can perform the
essential functions of their job without an accommodation cannot
sustain a failure to accommodate claim. This, the Court reasoned,
is inconsistent with the plain text of the ADA.
The ADA defines a qualified individual as “an individual
who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the
essential functions of the employment position.” The key
language here is the phrase “with or without reasonable
accommodation.” As such, the Second Circuit explained that
barring undue hardship an employer must provide an employee with a
reasonable accommodation even though such an accommodation is not
required to perform the essential functions of the job.
Key Takeaways for Employers:
This case broadens the scope of an employer’s duty when
assessing appropriate accommodations for employees with
disabilities. Before this decision, an employer in the Second
Circuit was not required to offer a reasonable accommodation if the
disabled employee was able to perform their duties without an
accommodation. This case now requires reasonable accommodations
notwithstanding the disabled employee’s ability to perform
their job functions without the accommodation. This could lead to a
potential influx of accommodation requests that will require
careful consideration by employers.
Additionally, when changing company policies, employers should
evaluate any consequences to reasonable accommodations that it has
granted and/or is considering.
Please reach out to the authors of this blog or your Seyfarth
attorney contact with any questions about reasonable accommodations
or requirements under the ADA.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
link