Labor & Employment Developments Blog

Understanding the scope and requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has been an ongoing challenge for employers. A recent court decision has added to this complexity by clarifying the interpretation of what it means to be a “qualified individual” under the ADA. In Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, the Second Circuit noted that the ADA was intended to offer broad protections to individuals with disabilities, and thus, should be interpreted accordingly. The Court held that an employee may still be considered a “qualified individual” entitled to reasonable accommodation under the ADA even if she can perform the essential functions of her job without reasonable accommodation. Thus, an employer is expected to provide reasonable accommodations to enhance an employee’s job performance in general. Providing reasonable accommodations are not tied to a person’s otherwise inability to perform the essential job functions.

Case Summary

In Tudor, a teacher who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) filed a claim against the school district alleging failure to accommodate. Previously, the school had allowed Tudor to leave the school ground twice daily for 15 minutes to cope with her PTSD symptoms. However, beginning in 2019 the school was unable to provide two breaks because of scheduling issues. Tudor subsequently filed a claim for failure to accommodate under the ADA, claiming the district’s refusal to guarantee a 15-minute afternoon break each day during the 2019-20 school year violated the ADA.

Tudor admitted she was able to perform the essential functions of her job even without this accommodation, and therefore the school district argued that she was not a person with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. The District Court agreed and granted summary judgement to the school district. The District Court explained that because Tudor admitted that she was able to perform the essential functions of her job without the 15-minute breaks accommodation, she was not a qualified individual under the ADA, thus, had no failure to accommodate claim.

Tudor appealed the decision. The Second Circuit vacated the District Court’s ruling. The Circuit Court held:

• An employee with a disability may qualify for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA even if they can perform the essential functions of their job without the accommodation.
• The ability to perform essential job functions without an accommodation is not dispositive for failure-to-accommodate claims under the ADA.

The Circuit Court explained, “the plain text of the ADA defines a ‘qualified individual’ as one who can perform the essential job functions ‘with or without reasonable accommodation,’ thus, indicating that the ability to perform without an accommodation does not preclude the right to an accommodation.” The court explained that the ADA was designed as a remedial statute, thus, should be interpreted broadly.

Takeaway for Employers

The ADA is a complex law that places significant expectations on employers. Employers are expected to engage in the interactive process even in situations where they might not realize there is the obligation, such as when an employee is nevertheless able to perform the essential functions of her job without an accommodation. Employers should revisit their policies and consult legal counsel to confirm they are complying with these expectations.

KMK Law will continue to monitor new developments relating to this matter. Should you have any questions, please contact the KMK Labor & Employment Group.