Second Circuit Clarifies Standard for Providing Reasonable Accommodations Under the ADA
In Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, the Second Circuit recently clarified that an employer may be required to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) even when an employee can perform the essential functions of their job without one.
To establish a case for failure to accommodate under the ADA, an employee must show that: (i) their employer is subject to the ADA; (ii) they were a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA; (iii) they were otherwise able to perform the essential functions of their job, with or without a reasonable accommodation; and (iv) the employer refused to provide a reasonable accommodation. The Court’s decision turned on the phrase “with or without,” emphasizing that employees with disabilities may qualify for accommodations even when they can perform their essential job functions without accommodations, unless the employer can establish that providing the accommodations would constitute an undue hardship.
The plaintiff-employee was a teacher with the Whitehall Central School District (“Whitehall”) for approximately 20 years and had been receiving a reasonable accommodation since 2008 to deal with certain physical manifestations of stress related to PTSD. The employee was permitted to take a fifteen-minute break - initially during both her morning and afternoon “prep periods,” and then later, during her morning prep period, and in the afternoon only when another staff member could supervise employee’s students during her assigned study hall period. Beginning with the 2019-2020 academic year, no other staff member was available to cover during her afternoon break. The employee sued, in part, on the basis that Whitehall’s refusal to guarantee a fifteen-minute afternoon break constituted a failure to accommodate her disability in violation of the ADA. During discovery, the employee acknowledged that she was able to perform the essential functions of her job without an accommodation. The District Court for the Northern District of New York ruled in favor of Whitehall on the basis that, because Plaintiff was able to perform the essential functions of her job without an accommodation, “no fact finder could determine she ha[d] established . . . [her] failure to accommodate claim.”
On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings, relying on the plain text of the ADA. The ADA defines a “qualified individual” in part as “an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires” (emphasis added). Prohibited discrimination under the ADA includes “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an . . . employee,” absent an undue hardship. The Court found, under a “straightforward reading” of the ADA, that the phrase “with or without” meant that the fact that an employee can perform their job without an accommodation does not mean they must. The Second Circuit aligned itself with most of the other federal circuits in holding that an employee with a disability may still be entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, even if they can perform the essential functions of their job without one.
Employers within the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut, and Vermont) should review their accommodations policies in light of this new standard. Additionally, employers should revisit their practices for engaging in the interactive process and weighing the reasonableness of an accommodation request against undue hardship. Employers with questions about reasonable accommodations or related policies should contact Kate Townley at ktownley@fglawllc.com or any other attorney at the Firm.
DISCLAIMER: This alert is provided to clients and friends of the firm for informational purposes only and the distribution of this alert is not intended to, and does not, establish an attorney-client relationship. This alert also does not provide or offer legal advice or opinions on any specific factual situations or matters. This communication may be considered Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.