Press "Enter" to skip to content

Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District

No. 23-665-cv, 132 F.4th 242 (2d Cir. 2025)
Second Circuit Court
March 25, 2025

Keywords: reasonable accommodation, essential functions, disability, failure-to-accommodate, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), symptoms, pain, harm, qualified individual, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), entitlement, undue hardship, discrimination, school, case of first impression.

Summary

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) says that governments or businesses (covered entities) cannot discriminate against a “qualified individual” with a disability in employment. The ADA defines a “qualified individual” as someone with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the job they have or want. Essential functions are the job duties specific to the purpose of the job.

To make a failure-to-accommodate case under the ADA, someone making a claim must prove four things: (1) that their employer is subject to the ADA; (2) that they meet the definition of disability in the ADA; (3) that they are otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without a reasonable accommodation; and (4) that their employer refused to make a reasonable accommodation. As relevant here, element number three requires that an individual has the skill, experience, or training to be qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without a reasonable accommodation.

In Tudor, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals wanted to clarify what it means to be a qualified individual. In previous cases before this court, the Second Circuit had ruled in various ways. In one case, the court held that a person who can perform the essential functions of a job without an accommodation cannot sustain a failure-to-accommodate claim—contradictory to the ADA.

The Second Circuit decided that the ADA requires a qualified individual to show that they can perform the job, with or without a reasonable accommodation. So, a plaintiff can establish a case, even if they can perform the job without a reasonable accommodation. The Second Circuit overturned the lower court judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Facts of the Case

Angel Tudor had worked for Whitehall Schools for around 20 years: first as a substitute teacher, then as a math teacher. Tudor has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) due to sexual harassment and sexual assault by a supervisor at her former workplace. Tudor’s PTSD affected her neurological functioning, made it hard for her to perform daily tasks, made her stutter, and caused nightmares so severe that she woke up vomiting.

Ms. Tudor’s PTSD symptoms worsened in 2008. In consultation with her therapist, she asked and got an accommodation from Whitehall Schools that allowed her to leave the school grounds during her “prep period.” She was allowed to leave twice a day—once in the morning, once in the afternoon, for 15 minutes each.

In 2016, following a change in school administration, Whitehall Schools adopted a policy banning teachers from leaving the school grounds during their “prep period.” When Tudor tried to leave, she was disciplined for insubordination. She informed Whitehall Schools of her accommodation. They said that she did not have enough documentation to establish a right to an accommodation.

Instead of providing additional documentation, Tudor took paid sick leave and then requested medical leave for the fall semester. During her leave, Tudor was unable to teach and attended a five day a week intensive outpatient program to help her control her PTSD and anxiety.

Tudor returned from medical leave in January 2017. Whitehall Schools granted her a partial accommodation. Under her partial accommodation, Ms. Tudor was allowed to leave in the morning, and in the afternoon—provided the school librarian was available to cover her class. If the librarian was unavailable, however, Tudor could no long leave the school grounds in the afternoon. This arrangement lasted for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years.

However, during the 2019-2020 school year, there was no librarian available to cover Tudor’s class in the afternoon. Tudor still left the school grounds during afternoon study hall, even though no one in Whitehall administration gave her permission to do so. And because nobody authorized Tudor to take these afternoon breaks, she testified that taking them heightened her anxiety as she thought she was violating school rules.

Eventually, Tudor sued Whitehall claiming that their refusal to give her a 15-minute afternoon break during the 2019-20 school year violated the ADA. The district court granted Whitehall Schools summary judgment. The court said that because Tudor could perform her essential job functions without reasonable accommodation, she could not establish the third element of an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim.

On appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the case to decide whether a plaintiff’s ability to perform essential functions of a job, without reasonable accommodation, is fatal to a failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA.

Issues of the Case

  1. Is an employee with a disability entitled to ADA accommodations, even though she can perform the essential functions of her job, where performance without the accommodation is physically or psychologically painful?

Arguments and Analysis

1. Is an employee with a disability entitled to ADA accommodations, even though she can perform the essential functions of her job, where performance without the accommodation is physically or psychologically painful?

The court began by looking at each part of an ADA claim and explained that when interpreting laws it starts with the text. The court then defined prohibited discrimination under the ADA, which includes failure to reasonably accommodate an otherwise qualified individual.

The court then looked at the term “qualified individual.” In looking at the statutory language, the Second Circuit decided that a qualified individual was one who could, with or without a reasonable accommodation, perform the essential functions of the job they hold or desire.

Using that language of the law as a guide, the court believed that a qualified individual can be entitled to a reasonable accommodation, even if she can perform essential job functions without it. The court said that a straightforward reading of the law resolved the appeal. But the court went on to say that the ADA, as a corrective law, should be read broadly to accomplish its purpose as a national anti-discrimination statute.

The court ended with a brief discussion of the defenses Whitehall Schools could offer. The court compared those with the fact that Ms. Tudor had long received accommodations, which suggested that her accommodations were reasonable. Finally, the court ruled that even if accommodations are not strictly necessary for an employee to perform essential job functions, they may still be reasonable and thus required under the ADA.

Rulings

With this ruling, the Second Circuit clarified its standard for the third element of an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim. Namely, that a plaintiff who can perform the essential functions of a job, even without an accommodation, may still establish a failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA.

Conclusion

The court was clear to say that this case was decided on narrow grounds. The court also noted that it was not considering the extent to which an accommodation is necessary to perform the essential functions of a job, only that the necessity of an accommodation does not dispose of the case.

With this ruling, the Second Circuit has brought its precedent in line with other circuits on this issue. As the court put it: “an employee with a disability is qualified to receive a reasonable accommodation under the ADA even if she can perform the essential job functions without one.”

Link

These materials do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon in any individual case. Please consult an attorney licensed in your state for legal advice and/or representation. These materials were prepared by the legal research staff of the Burton Blatt Institute (BBI) at Syracuse University in partnership with the Southeast ADA Center to highlight legal and policy developments relevant to civil rights protections and the impact of court decisions in the Southeast Region under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These materials are based on federal disability rights laws and court decisions in effect at the time of publication. Federal and state disability rights law can change at any time.  In addition, state and local laws and regulations may provide different or additional protections. Materials are intended solely as informal guidance, and are neither a determination of your legal rights nor responsibilities under the ADA or other federal, state, and local laws, nor binding on any agency with enforcement responsibility under the ADA. The accuracy of any information contained herein is not warranted. Any links to external websites are provided as a courtesy and are not intended to nor do they constitute an endorsement of the linked materials.

en_USEnglish
en_USEnglish