Expanded Workplace Accommodation Requirements for Employers in CT, NY and VT

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Connecticut, New York and Vermont, recently issued a decision expanding the scope of protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) when it comes to workplace accommodations.

 Specifically, the court held, in Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, that employees with disabilities may be entitled to reasonable accommodations, even if they can perform the essential functions of their jobs without one. 

The Tudor case involved a high school teacher with a long-standing history of PTSD.  For a period of years, the school had granted the teacher accommodations allowing her to leave campus for short breaks during the morning and afternoon.  Following a policy change, the school prohibited teachers from leaving campus during the day.  Thereafter, the school permitted the teacher to take the requested breaks when coverage was available.  During the 2019-20 school year, however, the school denied the teacher’s request for breaks.  The teacher filed a lawsuit against the school, alleging failure to accommodate under the ADA.  The trial court dismissed the teacher’s claim, concluding that the teacher admitted that she could perform the essential functions of her job without the requested breaks, although “under great duress and harm.”  The Second Circuit overturned this decision, reasoning that the ADA requires reasonable accommodations that support employees’ well being and workplace inclusion – not just those necessary to perform the essential duties of the job.

 In reaching its decision, the Second Circuit focused on the plain language of the ADA, which states that a “qualified individual” is “an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.”  As such, an employee may be a “qualified individual” who is entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the ADA even if the employee can perform the essential function of their job without one.  This switches the focus from an inquiry as to whether an accommodation is necessary to an inquiry as to whether a requested accommodation is reasonable.  By way of example, an employer may be required to provide a reasonable accommodation that alleviates an employee’s disability-related pain, even when the pain is not severe enough to prevent the employee from being able to do their job without the accommodation.

The court also clarified that, when faced with a request for reasonable accommodation, an employer may still consider whether the employee has a qualifying disability under the ADA (and has provided supporting medical documentation), and/or whether the accommodation requested would pose an undue hardship to the employer.  (Employers should be mindful, however, that establishing “undue hardship” is a high standard.)

In ruling that employees with disabilities are eligible for accommodations under the ADA even when they can perform essential job functions without them, albeit with difficulty or pain, the Second Circuit joins several other circuits.  Notable among the other circuits who have adopted similar reasoning is the First Circuit, which covers Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Please contact Lori Clark, lori@clarkderagonlaw.com or Beth Deragon, beth@clarkderagonlaw.com, if you are an employer needing guidance on an employee’s reasonable accommodation request or any other disability-related workplace issue.