By: Tatiana Sterling, Ashley Casey, Marlin Duro-Martinez, and William Perkins
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.
#Standard #Reasonable #Accommodations #Circuit