Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District
132 F.4th 242 (2025)
Sections
Rule of Law:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employee remains a "qualified individual" eligible for reasonable accommodation even if they are capable of performing the essential functions of their job without the accommodation. The necessity of an accommodation is not a prerequisite to its reasonableness.
Facts:
- Angel Tudor, a high school math teacher with a twenty-year tenure, suffers from PTSD resulting from past sexual assault and harassment.
- Tudor's condition causes severe symptoms including stuttering, vomiting, and neurological issues, which are triggered by the school environment.
- Starting in 2008, Tudor received an accommodation allowing her to leave campus for fifteen minutes during her prep periods to manage her symptoms.
- During the 2019-20 school year, the school district scheduled Tudor for an afternoon study hall where no staff coverage was available, effectively denying her requested fifteen-minute break.
- Despite the lack of formal permission, Tudor left campus for breaks on 91 out of 100 days, which heightened her anxiety due to fear of insubordination.
- Tudor admitted during discovery that she was able to perform the essential functions of her job without the accommodation, though doing so caused her great duress and harm.
Procedural Posture:
- Tudor sued the Whitehall Central School District in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York for violations of the ADA.
- The District Court assumed Tudor had a disability and that the accommodation was denied.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant-Appellee (Whitehall).
- Tudor appealed the grant of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee's admitted ability to perform the essential functions of their job without an accommodation automatically disqualify them from bringing a failure-to-accommodate claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs
No. The Court held that an employee's ability to perform essential job functions without accommodation is not fatal to a failure-to-accommodate claim. The Court based its reasoning on the plain text of the ADA, which defines a "qualified individual" as someone who can perform essential functions "with or without reasonable accommodation." The Court reasoned that the phrase "with or without" unambiguously includes employees who can work without help, meaning they are not disqualified from receiving accommodations simply because they are capable of working through their disability-related pain. The Court rejected the district court's inference that an accommodation must be strictly "necessary" to be required, noting that the statute mandates "reasonable" accommodations, not "necessary" ones. This interpretation aligns with the ADA's broad remedial purpose and the consensus of other circuit courts.
Analysis:
This decision aligns the Second Circuit with other major circuits (1st, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and D.C.) in rejecting a "necessity" standard for ADA accommodations. It is significant because it prevents employers from denying accommodations simply because an employee is resilient enough to work through pain or severe symptoms. The ruling clarifies that the ADA is not merely about enabling work, but also about the terms and conditions of employment, including the mitigation of disability-related suffering. Future cases will now focus on whether a requested accommodation is "reasonable" and whether it imposes an "undue hardship," rather than on whether the employee physically could do the job without it.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District (2025)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"