The workplace accommodation process associated with employee health conditions can be one of the trickiest HR issues for U.S. businesses to navigate. For employers in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, a federal appeals court may have just added a further layer of complexity.

On March 25, 2025, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals joined a split of federal circuit courts in concluding that employees may qualify for a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) despite being able to perform the essential duties of their job without an accommodation. Moving forward, the Second Circuit will now consider the ability to perform essential functions as probative evidence of whether an accommodation should be granted rather than dispositive.

Traditionally, courts within the Second Circuit, which covers New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, have viewed an employee’s ability to perform their job’s essential duties as determinative evidence that an accommodation by the employer was not necessary, thus defeating a failure to accommodate claim brought under the ADA. However, in Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District the Court of Appeals challenged this longstanding principle.

By way of background, the plaintiff-employee in Tudor was a New York-based teacher who suffered from PTSD stemming from a past traumatic event at a former workplace. As a result, she experienced mental and physical manifestations of stress, including the development of a speech impediment, difficulty sleeping, and vomiting from stress induced nightmares. To combat the disruptive side-effects of her condition, the School District granted her an accommodation by allowing her to leave campus twice a day in 15-minute increments to manage her symptoms, taking place during her morning and afternoon prep periods. However, when the school hired new administrators her accommodation was discontinued after the institution of new policies forbidding teachers from leaving campus during prep periods. When the plaintiff attempted to take her 15-minute breaks pursuant to her accommodation, she was reprimanded by her employer as such breaks were perceived as acts of insubordination. As a result, she filed suit against the school under the ADA for failure to accommodate her disability.

During litigation, the plaintiff admitted that, notwithstanding her disability-related challenges, she was able to perform the essential functions of her job regardless of the removal of her accommodations, albeit “under great duress and harm.” The federal district court therefore granted summary judgment for the school district on the basis that Tudor’s accommodation was not necessary to perform the necessary function and duties of her job. The district court inferred that an employee who can perform the essential functions of their job without an accommodation cannot, as a matter of law, sustain a claim for failure to accommodate.

Surprisingly, the Second Circuit reversed the decision. The court held that “qualified individuals” under the ADA are defined as “an individual who, with or withoutreasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such an individual holds or desires.” Under the Second Circuit’s interpretation, just because an individual canperform the essential functions of their job without an accommodation, does not mean that they must. As a result, the Second Circuit joins the First, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits in holding that an employee may still be a qualified individual under the ADA despite their ability to perform their job’s essential duties without an accommodation.  

Consequently, moving forward, employers located in the Second Circuit must still consider whether an accommodation requested by an employee is reasonable, and whether it will create an undue burden for the employer. However, employers must be mindful that just because an employee can perform their job duties without an accommodation, that does not necessarily preclude them from being a qualified individual to receive one under the ADA.