On March 25, 2025, the Second Circuit clarified the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standard on reasonable accommodations. Specifically, in Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, the court held that an employee may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation even if he or she can perform the essential functions of the job without it.
A high school math teacher who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder sued her employing school district under the ADA after it rejected her request to take 15-minute breaks in the afternoon. The plaintiff requested the breaks to have an opportunity to compose herself away from her workplace, as the environment triggered her symptoms. Although she was permitted similar accommodations in the past, the district’s new policy forbade employees from leaving school grounds, even during times they were not assigned to supervise students. Despite the rule, the teacher continued to take breaks in violation of the district’s policy, heightening her anxiety. While the teacher conceded she could perform her essential job functions without the breaks, she stated she would do so “under great duress and harm.”
The district court granted summary judgment for the district, finding that the district was not required to provide the off-site breaks since the teacher could perform the essential functions of her job without them.
However, the Second Circuit overturned the district court’s decision, emphasizing the unambiguous text of the ADA, which “plainly directs” employers to make “reasonable accommodations,” as opposed to necessary ones. Further, as the ADA requires employees to show, in part, that they could perform the essential functions of their job with or without a reasonable accommodation, a showing of strict necessity is unnecessary. According to the court’s decision, the statute requires employers to provide accommodations unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.
The Second Circuit remanded the case back to the district court to determine the fact-specific question of whether the requested accommodation is a reasonable one. It noted the possibility that the district would demonstrate that the requested breaks were unreasonable and imposed an undue hardship upon it, which would obviate the district’s requirement to allow them.
As noted by the Second Circuit, a majority of other federal circuit courts of appeal have interpreted the ADA in this manner. It now joins the consensus.
Employers in the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut, and Vermont) should note the court’s decision and adapt their policies accordingly. Additionally, employers should consider consulting counsel when addressing requests for disability accommodations, to avoid missteps that could result in litigation.
