Just because someone with a disability can function without an accommodation does not mean that the individual is not entitled to receive an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). That was the crux of a decision by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year, which serves to clarify just who and when an individual is protected under the ADA.
Understanding the Factual Context
The case at issue, Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District (2025), involved a high school math teacher who had requested to be allowed short breaks as an accommodation for PTSD arising from sexual assault in a former workplace. The school had initially approved the teacher’s request and was granting that accommodation, which enabled the teacher to take 15-minute breaks off-campus during her prep periods. The school then adopted a new policy that prohibited leaving campus during prep periods, and the teacher was reprimanded for doing so. The teacher took a medical leave and, when she returned, she received a new break agreement, but it was not always honored, and after she was assigned a courseload one year that impeded her ability to take a 15-minute afternoon break, she sued. The trial court dismissed the claim, reasoning that because the teacher could perform the essential functions of her job without the reasonable accommodation of a break period, she was not entitled to the protection of the ADA and could not pursue her claim that the school failed to accommodate her.
When the ADA Applies
In considering the teacher’s claim, the appellate court reviewed the four elements that an employee must show:
- that the employer is subject to the ADA (only employers with 15 or more employees are covered by the federal law);
- that the employee was disabled within the meaning of the ADA;
- that the employee was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without a reasonable accommodation; and
- that the employer refused to make a reasonable accommodation.
Most of these elements are nuanced and have been analyzed in numerous court decisions and EEOC guidance documents, some of which we will discuss in future blog articles in this series. The Tudor decision focused on the latter portion of the third element – what it means to be able to do the job “with or without” a reasonable accommodation.
The Court noted that in previous decisions, it had recognized an individual was protected by the ADA if, with an accommodation, the individual could perform the essential functions of the job. In Tudor, the Court clarified that just because an individual with a disability could manage to get the essential functions of the job done without an employer-provided accommodation, did not mean that the employee had no entitlement to a requested accommodation. Employees are not only entitled to accommodations that are “necessary,” but also those that are “reasonable” to enable the employee to perform their job.
ADA Coverage Is Only Step 1
The Court further stressed that it was simply determining whether the teacher’s claim fell within the scope of the ADA’s protection. The case was sent back to the trial court to consider a variety of disputed factors impacting whether the teacher would ultimately prevail on her claim, including whether she sufficiently established that she has a qualifying disability, and whether the request of consistently providing 15-minute morning and afternoon breaks to leave campus was reasonable.
Lesson for Employers
The takeaway for employers who are presented with an employee request for accommodation based on a disability is to move beyond whether the employee has to have a particular accommodation in order to do the job. Instead focus on the reasonableness of the accommodation requested, relative to the employee’s need for support and the needs and ability of the organization. Consideration of these requests always involves a balancing of varied factors, and employers that are uncertain how to weigh those elements should seek legal advice.
By Tracey I. Levy
