The Second Circuit has made it more difficult for employers to defeat Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) failure-to-accommodate claims at the summary judgment stage. In Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, 132 F.4th 242 (2d Cir. 2025), the Second Circuit became the latest appellate court to hold that an employee’s ability to perform the essential functions of her job without an accommodation does not alone defeat a claim that the employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. This recent decision represents a significant clarification of employers’ obligations under the ADA and aligns the Second Circuit with several circuits across the nation.
The Case: Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, 132 F.4th 242 (2d Cir. 2025)
The plaintiff, a high school teacher suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), requested an accommodation permitting her to leave school grounds during scheduled preparation periods to alleviate disability-related symptoms. Although she acknowledged that she could continue performing the essential functions of her position without the requested accommodation, she alleged that doing so caused great duress and harm. The school district denied part of her request, and the plaintiff commenced a suit. Following discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in the district’s favor. The court concluded that because the teacher could perform the essential functions of her job without the accommodation, she could not, as a matter of law, sustain a failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA.
On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated that decision. Looking to the statutory text, the ADA defines a qualified individual as one who can perform the essential functions of their position “with or without reasonable accommodation.” The court concluded that this language forecloses any categorical rule requiring an employee to prove that an accommodation is indispensable before an employer’s duty to accommodate arises. Congress required employers to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees, not merely accommodations to employees who cannot perform the essential functions of the job without them.
In issuing its decision, the court rejected the notion that failure-to-accommodate claims can be resolved through bright-line rules. Whether the requested accommodation is reasonable depends on the facts of the case, and whether an employee’s ability to continue working without an accommodation is only one consideration. Consistent with the ADA’s remedial purpose of eliminating discrimination against those with disabilities, the court held that employers may, in appropriate circumstances, be required to provide accommodations that alleviate disability-related pain or limitations even where the employee remains capable of performing the essential duties of the position. The employer remains free to argue that a requested accommodation is unreasonable or would impose an undue hardship, but it may no longer rely solely on the employee’s ability to continue working as a complete defense.
The Takeaway
Tudor changes the analysis of ADA accommodation requests in the Second Circuit. Employers evaluating accommodation requests should avoid treating an employee’s ability to continue performing the essential functions of the position as the end of the inquiry. After Tudor, the more significant questions are whether the requested accommodation is reasonable under the circumstances and whether providing it would impose an undue hardship.
The decision also serves as a reminder that the ADA is intended to eliminate workplace discrimination, not merely to ensure that employees can perform their jobs. Accommodation requests that were denied because they were viewed as unnecessary now warrant a more individualized assessment. Employers should therefore continue engaging in the interactive, carefully documented process and evaluate accommodation requests on a case-by-case basis rather than relying on categorical rules.
