Angel Tudor worked as a teacher for Whitehall Central School District in upstate New York for approximately twenty years. Tudor suffered from severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) resulting from sexual harassment and assault by a supervisor in a previous job. Her PTSD symptoms were significant, including stuttering, vomiting from nightmares, and the need for psychiatric hospitalization. In 2008, in consultation with her therapist, Tudor requested and received a disability accommodation that allowed her to take a fifteen-minute break during each of her daily morning and afternoon prep periods when she was not responsible for overseeing students. These breaks enabled her to step off campus to manage anxiety symptoms, particularly because her symptoms were triggered by the workplace environment.
In 2016, however, following a change in administration, Whitehall implemented a blanket policy prohibiting teachers from leaving campus during prep periods. When Tudor attempted to take her previously approved breaks, she was reprimanded for insubordination. She explained that her breaks had been part of a long-standing accommodation, but school administrators said the documentation they had on file was insufficient. Rather than submit new documentation, Tudor took paid sick leave and then requested leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. She ultimately returned in January 2017, at which point the School granted her a morning break and permitted an afternoon break only on days when a librarian was available to cover for her and watch her students. This partial accommodation continued through the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years—whether this arrangement violated the Americans with Disabilities Act is the subject of a separate lawsuit.
At issue in this case was Tudor’s experience in the 2019-20 school year, when Tudor was scheduled for an afternoon study hall rather than a prep period and no staff were available to provide coverage during that time. Tudor nevertheless took afternoon breaks on 91 out of 100 school days, but did so without formal approval, believing she was violating policy. This added to her anxiety, and she later testified that she continued working “under great duress and harm.” Tudor sued, alleging that Whitehall’s refusal to provide a guaranteed fifteen-minute break during the afternoon constituted a failure to accommodate her disability in violation of the ADA.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Whitehall, reasoning that Tudor’s ability to perform her essential job functions—despite the stress—meant she could not establish a viable ADA claim. The trial court focused on the third element of the ADA failure-to-accommodate framework, which requires a plaintiff to show they could perform the essential functions of the job with a reasonable accommodation. It interpreted this to mean that if an employee could perform those functions without an accommodation, then no claim could survive. Tudor appealed. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that reading as inconsistent with the text and purpose of the ADA.
The Court of Appeals emphasized that the ADA explicitly defines a “qualified individual” as someone who can perform the essential functions of the job “with or without reasonable accommodation.” This, the Court explained, means that an employee’s ability to do the job without accommodation does not eliminate their right to a reasonable one. The ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability, which includes an employer’s failure to make reasonable accommodations unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The Court of Appeals further observed that accommodations can include modified work schedules or job restructuring, and that the law does not require such accommodations to be strictly necessary—only reasonable.
The Court noted that several other federal appellate courts have similarly concluded that an employee who works through pain or hardship is not disqualified from seeking an accommodation that could alleviate the strain. It emphasized that the reasonableness of an accommodation is a fact-specific inquiry and that bright-line rules, such as the one applied by the trial court, are generally disfavored in disability cases.
While the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment, it did not rule on whether Tudor’s request for an afternoon break was in fact a reasonable accommodation or whether Whitehall had other valid defenses, such as undue hardship. It left those questions for the trial court to consider on remand, noting that in a separate related case involving prior school years, the trial court had already identified genuine factual disputes regarding Tudor’s disability and the sufficiency of the School’s accommodation. The Court of Appeals concluded only that the ADA permits failure-to-accommodate claims even where the plaintiff can perform the job without the requested accommodation, provided the accommodation could reduce disability-related harm and is reasonable.
Tudor v. Whitehall Cent. Sch. Dist. (2d Cir. Mar. 25, 2025) ___ F.4th ___ [2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6879].
Note: This decision brings the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in line with other circuit courts, including the Ninth Circuit, where California is located. This case confirms that an employer’s duty to accommodate exists if an employee has a disability and is able to perform the essential functions of their job “with or without” an accommodation.