Second Circuit Affirms that ADA Workplace Accommodation Protections are Broad
KEY TAKEAWAYS:
-
Employees with disabilities may be entitled to reasonable accommodations even if they can perform the essential functions of their job without an accommodation.
-
Ability to perform the essential functions of the job is relevant to a failure-to-accommodate claim, but it is not dispositive.
In a recent Second Circuit decision from March, Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, the court clarified the broad scope of workplace accommodation protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Specifically, the court ruled that employees with disabilities may be entitled to reasonable accommodations even if they can perform the essential functions of their job without one.
In Tudor, plaintiff appealed a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant on a failure-to-accommodate claim brought pursuant to the ADA. The lower court ruled that an employee’s ability to perform the essential functions of her job without a reasonable accommodation is fatal to her failure-to-accommodate claim. The Second Circuit held that the District Court erred and reversed the decision.
In this matter, plaintiff was employed as a teacher and allegedly suffered for decades from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) related to sexual harassment and sexual assault by a supervisor in her former workplace.
In 2008, plaintiff contends that her PTSD symptoms escalated and she was no longer able to manage the symptoms with therapy and medication. As a result, plaintiff sought an accommodation from her employer to leave campus for one 15-minute break during each of her morning and afternoon prep periods. She explained that the purpose of these breaks was to allow plaintiff to compose herself as the workplace environment potentially triggered her symptoms. The school granted plaintiff’s accommodation request that allowed her to leave campus for one 15-minute break during each of her morning and afternoon “prep periods,” when she was not responsible for overseeing students.
In 2016, a change in the school administration led to a rule prohibiting teachers from leaving school grounds during prep periods. Plaintiff was reprimanded for insubordination when she left the school grounds as a result of the new policy. Plaintiff informed the administration as to her longstanding accommodation, but was told that the documentation that the defendant had on file was insufficient to establish her right to a reasonable accommodation. Plaintiff did not provide additional documentation relating to her accommodation request. Instead, plaintiff requested Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave, which she was granted.
Plaintiff returned from FMLA leave in January 2017, and when she returned, defendant granted plaintiff one break in the morning and an additional break in the afternoon on days when another employee could watch her students. If there was not another employee available to watch her students, then plaintiff was unable to take the afternoon break. During the 2019-2020 school year, there were very few occasions where nobody was available to watch plaintiff’s students to allow her to take both of the requested breaks.
Plaintiff sued the defendant-employer alleging that defendant’s refusal to grant plaintiff her requested breaks violated the ADA and New York State law. To establish a prima facie case for a failure to accommodate under the ADA, a plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) her employer is subject to the ADA; (2) she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (3) she was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of his job, with or without reasonable accommodation; and (4) her employer refused to make a reasonable accommodation.
The lower court held that because plaintiff was able to perform the essential functions of her job without an accommodation, “no fact finder could determine she has established the third element of her failure to accommodate claim.” However, on appeal, the Second Circuit found this ruling to be in error. Specifically, the court ruled that an employer must, absent undue hardship, offer a reasonable accommodation to an employee with a disability if that employee is capable of performing the essential functions of her job with or without the accommodation.
The Second Circuit held that the fact that an employee can perform her job responsibilities without a reasonable accommodation does not mean that she must do so. An employee may qualify for an accommodation even if it is not strictly necessary to her performance of the essential functions of the job. The court held that the necessity of an accommodation to the performance of essential job functions is relevant to the failure-to-accommodate claim but is not dispositive. Ultimately, the court decided that accommodations that are not strictly necessary for an employee’s performance of essential job functions may still be reasonable and therefore required by the ADA.
This Second Circuit decision aligns with similar decisions from other circuits and makes clear that employers must consider an employee’s request for reasonable accommodation even when an employee can fulfill his or her job duties without it. The Tudor decision confirms that the ADA’s broad protections extend to accommodations that improve an employee’s overall workplace experience and not just those that are essential to the employee’s job performance.
In light of the Tudor opinion, and similar opinions from other circuit courts, employers should review and assess their accommodation policies to ensure they comply with the ADA’s broad protections.
For more information or immediate guidance, contact:
Or another member of our Employment and Labor group