Clarifying “Qualified Individuals” Under the ADA: Reasonable Accommodations Not Limited to Necessity

Introduction

Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, decided March 25, 2025, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, addresses a critical question under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): whether an employee who is capable of performing the essential functions of her job without an accommodation can still maintain a failure‐to‐accommodate claim. Angel Tudor, a high‐school mathematics teacher with post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), appealed from a Northern District of New York decision granting summary judgment for her employer, Whitehall Central School District (“Whitehall”). The district court held that Tudor’s ability to teach, despite her disability‐related pain and anxiety, barred her claim. The Second Circuit reversed, establishing that the ADA’s text and purpose require employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” even when an employee can perform essential functions without them.

Key issues:

• Does the ADA permit a failure‐to‐accommodate claim if the plaintiff can perform essential job functions without the requested accommodation?
• How does the statutory definition of “qualified individual” in 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) bear on that question?
• What interpretive approach best serves the ADA’s remedial purpose?

Parties:

• Plaintiff‐Appellant: Angel Tudor, a long‐time teacher diagnosed with PTSD.
• Defendant‐Appellee: Whitehall Central School District, Tudor’s employer.
• Amicus Curiae: United States (EEOC and Department of Justice Civil Rights Division).

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit unanimously held that the district court misinterpreted the ADA by treating an employee’s ability to perform essential job functions without an accommodation as fatal to a failure‐to‐accommodate claim. Relying on the unambiguous definition of “qualified individual”—“an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position” (42 U.S.C. § 12111(8))—the court concluded that “with or without” plainly contemplates individuals who can perform their jobs unaided yet remain entitled to reasonable accommodations. The court vacated the judgment granting summary judgment to Whitehall and remanded for further proceedings, leaving open defenses such as undue hardship.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Borkowski v. Valley Central School District (2d Cir. 1995): Held under the Rehabilitation Act that an individual is “otherwise qualified” if she can perform essential functions “with or without reasonable accommodation.” The Court in Tudor reaffirmed this principle under ADA analogues.
• Woolf v. Strada (2d Cir. 2020): Articulated the prima facie elements of a failure‐to‐accommodate claim, including that the plaintiff must demonstrate she was qualified to perform essential functions “with or without reasonable accommodation.”
• Natofsky v. City of New York (2d Cir. 2019): Described the third element of a failure‐to‐accommodate claim as showing “with reasonable accommodation, plaintiff could perform the essential functions.” The Tudor court explained that this phrasing cannot override the statutory “with or without” language.
• Sister‐circuit decisions (First, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, D.C. and Eighth Circuits) all hold that an employee need not show that an accommodation is strictly necessary to her performance; ability to work “with difficulty” does not foreclose a claim.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s analysis proceeded in three steps:

1. Textual Analysis: The ADA defines “qualified individual” as one who “with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions” (42 U.S.C. § 12111(8)). The court held that “with or without” must be given its ordinary meaning: both categories of workers—those who need accommodations to perform their jobs and those who do not—qualify for protection.
2. Statutory Scheme: The ADA prohibits an employer from failing to make a reasonable accommodation for “the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual” (42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)), so long as the accommodation does not impose undue hardship. Reading “qualified” to exclude those who can labor without accommodation would render the “with or without” clause meaningless.
3. Purpose and Remedial Nature: As a remedial statute, the ADA commands broad construction to eradicate discrimination. Limiting accommodations to what is strictly necessary would contradict Congress’s choice of the term “reasonable accommodation,” which encompasses not only essential‐function enabling measures but also accommodations that alleviate pain, stress, or other disability burdens.

3. Impact

This decision clarifies a previously unsettled circuit split and reinforces employees’ rights under the ADA:

• It dispels any notion that employers need only accommodate employees when the worker cannot perform the essential duties without assistance.
• It aligns the Second Circuit with the First, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, D.C., and Eighth Circuits, promoting uniformity in ADA jurisprudence nationwide.
• It expands the range of potentially required accommodations to include those that reduce pain, mitigate discomfort, or address anxiety—even if the employee can perform core tasks unaided.
• It signals that courts must engage in fact‐specific inquiries into what accommodations count as “reasonable,” balancing employer burdens against employees’ disabilities.
• Employers should reevaluate their accommodation policies to ensure they consider requests from employees who can already perform essential functions but still experience significant disability‐related hardship.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Qualified Individual: Under the ADA, this term includes anyone who can do the key parts of their job with or without help.
• Essential Functions: The core duties of a job—the tasks that define its purpose. ADA claims focus on whether an employee could or can perform these duties.
• Reasonable Accommodation: Adjustments or changes—like modified schedules or breaks—that allow an employee with a disability to work. “Reasonable” does not mean “absolutely necessary,” but rather “not overly burdensome” for the employer.
• Undue Hardship: A legal defense permitting employers to avoid granting an accommodation if it would impose significant difficulty or expense.
• Summary Judgment: A court decision made without a full trial when no facts are in dispute and the law clearly favors one side.

Conclusion

Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District establishes a critical precedent under the ADA: an employee’s ability to complete essential job duties unaided does not bar a failure‐to‐accommodate claim. The Second Circuit’s textual and purposive analysis underscores that “qualified individuals” include those who can work without accommodations but still suffer significant disability‐related burdens. This decision not only resolves a circuit split but also reaffirms the ADA’s broad remedial scope, requiring employers to consider a wide range of reasonable accommodations. On remand, Whitehall may revisit defenses such as undue hardship, but it cannot rely solely on Tudor’s unaided performance to defeat her claim. The ruling fortifies protections for employees with disabilities and underscores the necessity of fact‐specific assessments of what accommodations are reasonable in each workplace context.