Second Circuit Expands Accommodation Requirements under ADA

The rules on accommodations just changed for employers — at least in Connecticut and New York (and Vermont too).

The Second Circuit (which covers Connecticut, New York and Vermont), in an important decision released last week, expanded the situations in which an employee can get an accommodation holding that such accommodations may be required even accommodations even when they can do their jobs without them. For HR professionals, this decision should be factored into how you look at accommodation requests.

My colleague, Sarah Westby, has our firm’s take on the case on our sister blog, but because of the importance of the case, I thought I would provide my own perspective too.

Case Background

Angel Tudor, a high school math teacher with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), requested brief breaks during the school day to manage her symptoms. For years, the school district had accommodated her with 15-minute breaks during her morning and afternoon prep periods, allowing her to leave campus. After a change in administration and policy in 2016, the school began restricting these accommodations.

The dispute centered on the 2019-20 school year, when Tudor was scheduled for afternoon study hall duty with no coverage for her breaks. Tudor admitted during discovery that she could perform the essential functions of her job without the accommodation, though “under great duress and harm.”

Based on this admission, the district court granted summary judgment to Whitehall, concluding that if Tudor could perform her essential job functions without accommodation, she couldn’t establish a failure-to-accommodate claim.

The Court’s Analysis

The Second Circuit flatly rejected this reasoning, finding that it contradicts the plain text of the ADA, which defines a “qualified individual” as one who can perform essential job functions “with or without reasonable accommodation”. The court explained:

1. An employee may qualify for a reasonable accommodation even if they can perform essential job functions without it
2. The ADA requires “reasonable accommodations,” not merely “necessary accommodations”
3. The reasonableness of an accommodation is a fact-specific inquiry, making per se rules inappropriate

The court joined a consensus it said among other circuits (including the First, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits) in holding that employees with disabilities remain eligible for accommodations even when they can perform essential job functions without them, albeit with difficulty or pain.

Key Implications for Employers

This decision significantly impacts how employers should approach reasonable accommodation requests:

1. Reevaluate accommodation denial criteria: The fact that an employee can technically perform their job without an accommodation is not likely a valid basis for denial in and of itself.
2. Focus on reasonableness, not necessity: The court emphasized that accommodations need to be reasonable, not strictly necessary for job performance.
3. Consider pain reduction as valid accommodation goal: The court suggested that accommodations aimed at mitigating disability-related pain may be required, even when the employee can work through the pain.
4. Maintain detailed accommodation documentation: Employers should thoroughly document the interactive process and any undue hardship claims.
5. Review existing policies: Particularly where accommodations were previously granted and later withdrawn, employers face higher scrutiny.

Practical Takeaways

Going forward, there are obviously some takeaways for employers to consider; employers have likely been doing most of this before, but you might want to make sure your HR staff and managers know that acccomodations may need to be considered even if the employee says they can perform the job.

If the employee says that they have disability-related pain and difficulty, that might need to be addressed, not merely the employee’s job performance. And if the accommodations would result in a hardship, document that hardship too.

The Second Circuit’s decision represents a significant expansion of ADA protections. While the case was remanded to determine if Tudor actually has a qualifying disability and whether her specific accommodation request was reasonable, the legal principle is clear: an accommodation that allows an employee to work with less pain or difficulty may be required under the ADA, even if the employee can perform essential job functions without it.

For more on accommodations, I recently recorded a podcast episode on From Lawyer to Employer with my partner, Keegan Drenosky. Note that the podcast was recorded before this Second Circuit’s decision though much of what we discussed remains unchanged.