The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may require an accommodation even where an employee can perform their job without it, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently held.
High school math teacher Angel Tudor alleged that she had suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder for decades. Her symptoms affected her neurological functioning, interfered with her ability to perform daily tasks, induced a stutter that impeded communication and caused nightmares.
In 2008, she sought and received accommodation from Whitehall Central School District that allowed her to leave campus for one 15-minute break during each of her morning and afternoon prep periods. She used these breaks to compose herself away from the workplace.
Following a change in school administration in 2016, Whitehall prohibited teachers from leaving school grounds during prep periods. When Tudor attempted to leave during her breaks, she was reprimanded.
She then took leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. When Tudor returned, Whitehall granted her one of her requested breaks when coverage was available. But a few years later, the schedule did not have anyone available to cover for Tudor. She nevertheless left school grounds for a break on 91 of the 100 days of school that year.
Tudor sued, claiming Whitehall's refusal to guarantee a 15-minute afternoon break each day violated the ADA and constituted a failure to accommodate her medical condition.
During discovery, Tudor acknowledged that, even without additional accommodation, she was able to "perform the essential functions of her job," albeit "under great duress and harm."
Whitehall moved for summary judgment and the district court granted the motion, ruling that Tudor's ability to perform the essential functions of her job without reasonable accommodation was fatal to her failure to accommodate claim.
The Second Circuit disagreed and reversed, stating that "[a] straightforward reading of the ADA confirms that an employee may qualify for a reasonable accommodation even if she can perform the essential functions of her job without the accommodation." "Ability to perform the essential functions of the job is relevant to a failure-to-accommodate claim, but it is not dispositive," the court wrote.
Pursuant to case law, to establish a prima facie case for failure to accommodate under the ADA, a plaintiff has four requirements, including that he or she "was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation."
The ADA itself defines a "qualified individual" as "an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires."
Putting all of this together, "an employer must, absent undue hardship, offer a reasonable accommodation—such as a modified work schedule—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 court explained. "Under a straightforward reading of the phrase 'with or without,' the fact that an employee can perform her job responsibilities without a reasonable accommodation does not mean that she must: she may be a 'qualified individual' entitled to reasonable accommodation even if she can perform the essential functions of her job without one."
This conclusion didn't break new ground and joined with several other federal appellate courts, including the First, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth and D.C. Circuits, the court added.
The court noted that it was not considering the extent to which the necessity of an accommodation to the performance of essential job functions is relevant to any particular failure to accommodate claim, holding only that the necessity of the accommodation was not dispositive.
"The ADA 'does not require the perfect elimination of all disadvantage that may flow from the disability,'" the court wrote. "But employees who can work without accommodation are included within the category of individuals 'qualified' for reasonable accommodations."
To read the opinion in Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, click here.
Why it matters: The Court's ruling further complicates already difficult questions about when and how an employer is required to reasonably accommodate an employee's condition.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
