Appellate Court Discusses Reasonable Accommodations Requirements

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires, among other things, that employers provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities. But, what if the disabled employee can perform the functions of her job without an accommodation? Does the ADA still require the employer to provide an accommodation? The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York discusses reasonable accommodations requirements in the case Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District.

History of the Americans with Disabilities Act

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employers from discriminating against employees with disabilities. The ADA covers individuals who can perform the essential functions of their job position with or without a reasonable accommodation. Put another way, before a court determines an employer refused to provide an accommodation to an employee, the court must determine whether the employee could perform the essential job functions with or without a reasonable accommodation.

Facts of the Tudor Case

In the Tudor case, the plaintiff-employee worked for a public school district as a math teacher. The employee suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, arising from being a victim of sexual harassment and sexual assault in a previous workplace. Her symptoms included neurological impairments and stuttering.

According to the court’s decision, Tudor’s symptoms escalated in 2008 reaching a point where therapy and medication could not control them. Her therapist recommended that she take a 15 minute break in the morning and afternoon each day, when she was not overseeing students. The school district agreed and Tudor used the breaks to leave the workplace, where her symptoms were triggered.

In 2016, the school’s administration changed. Following the change, the school prohibited teachers from leaving school grounds during prep periods, the time when Tudor would take her off-premises 15 minute break. Nonetheless, Tudor tried to leave campus, but was reprimanded for insubordination. The school further told Tudor that the information on file concerning her accommodation was insufficient.

Tudor took a leave of absence to treat her symptoms. Upon her return in 2017, the school granted her a break in the morning, and an afternoon break only on days when a librarian could watch her students. On the days when a librarian wasn’t available, Tudor couldn’t take her break.

In the 2019-20 school year, no school employees were available to cover Tudor’s afternoon break. Tudor left school grounds anyway, and sued the school district alleging that the failure to provide her the 15 minute afternoon break violated the ADA. She also alleged it violated the New York State Human Rights Law, but for reasons not stated in the decision, she dismissed those state law claims.

Once in court, the trial court dismissed Tudor’s claims. The judge determined that even though the school did not give her an accommodation, Tudor was able to do the essential functions of her job, so she did not maintain a lawsuit against the school. The court dismissed the case and Tudor appealed.

The Appellate Court Reverses the Trial Court Because it Misapplied the Law

The Second Circuit ruled that the trial misinterpreted the law concerning reasonable accommodations. The Court started with the well-settled principle that when interpreting a statute such as the ADA, courts should look first to the text of the statute. Looking at the ADA’s text, the Second Circuit concluded that the law requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with a disability, whether or not the employee is capable of performing the essential job functions with or without the accommodation. Putting it another way, the Court said that the fact that an employee can perform job responsibilities without a reasonable accommodation doesn’t mean that she must.

The Court found further support for its conclusion in other areas too. First, the Second Circuit ruled that its interpretation aligns with the interpretations from other appellate courts in the country. But, the Court also determined that its interpretation aligns with the ADA’s requirement that it broadly interpreted to effectuate its remedial purpose. Requiring that an accommodation be strictly necessary would conflict with this purpose.

For all of these reasons, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In sum, the Tudor decision stands for an important principle of disability discrimination law: an employer violates the law when it refuses to provide an accommodation to a disabled employee, even if the employee can perform the job’s responsibilities without an accommodation, unless an accommodation would be a hardship on the employer.

If you have questions about disability discrimination or failure to accommodate claims, contact an employment discrimination lawyer at Famighetti & Weinick PLLC. Our employment lawyers are available (631) 352-0050.