S6 Ep120: Redefining Workplace Accommodation: The Tudor v Whitehall Case

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.

This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!

A landmark legal decision has just reshaped our understanding of workplace disability accommodations. On March 25, 2025, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District fundamentally changes how we interpret the Americans with Disabilities Act, establishing that employees may qualify for reasonable accommodations even when they can technically perform their job without them.

We break down Angel Tudor's journey—a teacher whose request to leave campus during prep periods to manage her PTSD symptoms was denied, despite having previously received this accommodation. The conflict emerged when a new administration implemented a blanket policy against leaving school grounds, prioritizing standardized operations over individual needs. While Tudor could technically teach without these breaks, she maintained they were crucial for managing her disability and maintaining her wellbeing.

The fascinating legal battle hinges on interpretation of the ADA's specific language. The initial district court ruled that since Tudor could perform her essential job functions, she wasn't entitled to accommodation. But the Second Circuit emphatically disagreed, focusing on the critical phrase "with or without reasonable accommodation" in the law. Their interpretation opens new possibilities for workplace equity, recognizing that accommodations may address pain and other disability effects even when basic job performance is possible.

This case exposes the tension between employers' desire for standardized policies and their obligation to accommodate individual employees with disabilities. It raises profound questions about moving beyond minimal compliance toward creating genuinely inclusive environments where everyone can contribute their best work. Whether you're an employer, employee, or simply interested in workplace rights, this ruling provides a powerful framework for understanding what true accessibility looks like in practice.

If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.

For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.

Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
OK, so today we're taking a deep dive into a legal
case that could have a reallybig impact for employees with
disabilities.
It's called Angel Tudor vWhitehall Central School
District and you know youactually sent us a pretty
amazing set of documents to workwith for this one.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
Yeah, we have the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
decision itself and the originalcomplaint.
Really detailed stuff.

Speaker 1 (00:21):
Right the school district's response to laying
out their side of things plusthe district court's initial
ruling.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
I mean, it's like we have all the pieces of the
puzzle here.

Speaker 1 (00:31):
Definitely a multifaceted view.
So our goal is to figure out,you know, what's the big legal
question at the heart of allthis and what does it tell us
about the rights of people withdisabilities, especially in the
workplace, like that's thecrucial part.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
Absolutely, and I think having all these documents
is so valuable because it's notjust the outcome.

Speaker 1 (00:46):
It's the journey.

Speaker 2 (00:47):
It's how we got there .
We have the Second Circuit'sdecision, which is really
interesting because it actuallyoverturned an earlier ruling.
This was just from March ofthis year, so very recent.

Speaker 1 (01:00):
So we're talking hot off the presses, legally
speaking.

Speaker 2 (01:02):
Exactly.
And then we have Ms Tudor'sperspective right, Her detailed
account of what she went through, the legal arguments she's
making.
But we also have the schooldistrict's response.
They're pushing back on a lotof those claims, obviously
presenting their own defense.
And then that initial districtcourt decision that sets the
stage for everything thatfollows.

Speaker 1 (01:21):
Right, it's like the foundation of this whole appeal
process, for everything thatfollows.
Right, it's like the foundationof this whole appeal process
and, I think, for our listenersyou know the people who really
like to get into the weeds ofthese complex issues this deep
dive is especially relevantbecause it tackles a pretty
nuanced area of the law, andthat is the right to what's
called reasonable accommodationin the workplace, even if you're
able to do your job without it.

Speaker 2 (01:43):
Which is the really fascinating part.

Speaker 1 (01:48):
Right, because we're not just talking about whether
someone can physically show upand check off the boxes on a job
description.
The Second Circuit is basicallysaying the ADA, the Americans
with Disabilities Act, is aboutmaking sure everyone has a fair
shot, considering the realimpact of their disability.

Speaker 2 (02:01):
That's a key point.
It's not just about bareminimum function.
It's about creating a trulylevel playing field.

Speaker 1 (02:08):
Exactly so, that shift in thinking.
That's the big takeaway here,and it could have some huge
implications for workplaceseverywhere.
So let's jump right in.
What was that central legalquestion the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals focused on intheir decision?

Speaker 2 (02:23):
Well, the core issue they addressed was whether an
employee with a disability isqualified for reasonable
accommodation under the ADA,even if they can perform the
essential functions of their jobwithout it, and that's a really
, really critical distinction.

Speaker 1 (02:38):
Right, Because you might think on the surface, if
someone can do the job, why dothey need an accommodation?
But obviously there's more toit than that.
So what did the district courtdecide initially and what was
their rationale?

Speaker 2 (02:49):
OK.
So the district court actuallyruled in favor of the Whitehall
Central School District,granting them what's called a
summary judgment.
Now, summary judgment basicallymeans the court looked at
everything and said listen,there's no real dispute about
the basic facts here, so wedon't need a full blown trial.
We can make a decision based onthe documents alone.

(03:10):
Exactly, and their reasoningwas pretty straightforward.
Angel Tudor herself admittedshe could perform the essential
duties of her teaching job evenwithout the specific break
accommodation she was requesting.
So the district court said well, if she can do the job without
it, then she hasn't shown anecessary component of her claim
, Meaning, in their view, shedidn't meet the requirements for
proving she was denied areasonable accommodation under

(03:32):
the ADA.

Speaker 1 (03:33):
So it seems like a simple can she do the job or not
?
Kind of analysis.

Speaker 2 (03:38):
Yeah, at that level, yeah, but of course the Second
Circuit didn't see it that way.

Speaker 1 (03:41):
Obviously, that's why we're here.
So what were the SecondCircuit's reasons for
disagreeing with that initialruling?
What didn't sit right with them?

Speaker 2 (03:49):
Well, they said it very directly the district
court's interpretation, in theirwords, cannot be squared with
the ADA's plain text.
And to back that up, theyreally honed in on specific
language in the ADA's definitionof a qualified individual, and
that definition includes thephrase wait for it, with or

(04:10):
without reasonable accommodation.
They even quoted the law itself, the part that says it's
considered discrimination if anemployer doesn't make those
reasonable accommodations.

Speaker 1 (04:19):
It's like they're going back to the source code of
the law.

Speaker 2 (04:21):
Exactly, and I think the most interesting part is
they went out of their way tostress that reasonable
accommodations and necessaryaccommodations are not the same
thing at all.

Speaker 1 (04:29):
Okay, so let's dig into that whole with or without
phrase.
What's the Second Circuitreally saying there?
Why is that such a big deal?

Speaker 2 (04:36):
Their reading of it is pretty simple.
You know lawyers love toovercomplicate things, but
sometimes it really is justabout the words themselves.

Speaker 1 (04:42):
Sometimes plain English does the trick.

Speaker 2 (04:44):
Exactly, and they basically said.
The plain meaning of thestatute is this An employee can
still be qualified for anaccommodation, even if they can
technically do their job withoutit.

Speaker 1 (04:55):
So it's not just about getting the job done, it's
about how they're getting itdone.

Speaker 2 (04:58):
It's about getting the job done.
It's about how they're gettingit done Right, and that's a huge
shift from how the districtcourt approached it.
Now it's less about can youperform the basic tasks and more
about is this accommodationreasonable given your disability
, and that, I think, is whatmakes this decision so
potentially groundbreaking.

Speaker 1 (05:14):
It broadens the whole conversation.
Ok, so the Second Circuit alsoused this term remedial statute
when talking about the ADA.
Ok, so the Second Circuit alsoused this term remedial statute
when talking about the ADA.
What does that actually mean inthe legal world and how did
that concept play into theirdecision?

Speaker 2 (05:26):
OK, so a remedial statute is a law that's meant to
fix a specific problem insociety.
In this case, it'sdiscrimination against people
with disabilities.

Speaker 1 (05:34):
Right, it's about solving a problem, not just
laying out rules.

Speaker 2 (05:46):
Exactly, and courts are generally supposed to
interpret these types of lawsbroadly, you know, to really
address the root of the issue.
So the Second Circuit isarguing that if Congress had
only wanted employers to provideaccommodations that were
absolutely essential for someoneto do their job, they would
have used the word necessaryright, but they didn't.
They used reasonable, whichsuggests a much wider scope.

Speaker 1 (05:59):
So it's about removing barriers, creating real
opportunities, not just makingsure someone can technically
clock in and clock out.
Now there was anotherinteresting point in the
decision.
The Second Circuit mentionedthat the ADA might require
accommodations to address anemployee's pain or other effects
of their disability, even if,again, they're technically able
to do their job.
Why is that so important toemphasize?

Speaker 2 (06:22):
I think this really gets to the heart of what
reasonable accommodation issupposed to be about, because it
goes beyond.
You know, can you do the basictasks of your job?
It takes into account the humanelement.
What's the impact of thisdisability on this person's
well-being?
Can they actually keep workingin the long run without
unnecessary suffering?
And Second Circuit is sayingeven if you can grit your teeth

(06:44):
and push through it, the ADAmight still require an employer
to do something reasonable toalleviate that pain.
Make things more equitable.
It's about a sustainable workenvironment too.

Speaker 1 (06:54):
It's about working with dignity, not just working
through pain, Precisely Okay.
So let's shift gears and talkspecifically about Angel Tudor's
case.
What was the accommodation sherequested?
What was she asking for?

Speaker 2 (07:06):
She was asking for something pretty straightforward
Permission to leave campus forone 15-minute break during each
of her morning and afternoonprep periods.
These were times when shewasn't directly supervising
students and she wanted to usethat time to manage her PTSD
symptoms.

Speaker 1 (07:22):
Now the court documents do go into some detail
about Mrs Tudor's diagnosis ofPTSD.
What kind of information didher amended complaint include
that really gave us a sense ofhow this condition was affecting
her life and her work?

Speaker 2 (07:36):
Well, the complaint provided a lot of details and
it's a pretty upsetting story,to be honest and her work Well,
the complaint provided a lot ofdetails and it's a pretty
upsetting story, to be honest.
Ms Tudor explains that her PTSDstems from past sexual
harassment and assault and it'saffecting her in a lot of ways.

Speaker 1 (07:46):
It sounds like it's really impacting her
neurological functioning.

Speaker 2 (07:51):
Yeah, she says it interferes with everyday tasks.
It causes a stutter whichobviously affects her
communication as a teacher.
She has severe nightmares,sometimes to the point of being
physically sick.
She's on multiple medicationsto manage the symptoms and she's
even required psychiatrichospitalization three times
because of her PTSD.
The complaint also mentionsthat she actually couldn't work
for four years because of howsevere her condition was and

(08:13):
then in 2008, it seems, hersymptoms got worse again because
of some incidents at work.

Speaker 1 (08:24):
It really makes you realize how critical these legal
protections are, Absolutely.
You know, hearing all this,it's clear this is not just a
minor inconvenience.
This is a serious and ongoingstruggle.
Now the complaint also toucheson Ms Tudor's past experiences
with accommodations from theschool district.
What was that history like andwhat changed that led to this
whole lawsuit?

Speaker 2 (08:38):
Well, here's the thing.
Ms Tudor had actually beengranted a similar accommodation
back in 2008.
They let her leave campus forbreaks and she felt like at the
time that was really key tobeing able to do her job well.
But then in 2016, thingschanged.
There was a new administrationand they put in place a new
policy that said no teacherscould leave school grounds

(08:58):
during their prep periods, soher existing accommodation was
basically revoked.

Speaker 1 (09:00):
Yeah, pretty much that said, no teachers could
leave school grounds duringtheir prep periods, so her
existing accommodation wasbasically revoked?

Speaker 2 (09:03):
Yeah, pretty much.
And when Ms Studer tried to useher accommodation, she was
actually reprimanded for it,considered insubordinate.
She told the new administrationabout her previous
accommodation but they claimedthere wasn't enough
documentation on file andinstead of, you know, providing
more information, right then sheended up taking sick leave and
then leave under the Family andMedical Leave Act.
It's really frustrating when asystem that was working for you

(09:26):
is suddenly taken away.

Speaker 1 (09:30):
Absolutely, and it puts someone in a really tough
position.
So what was happening duringthe 2019-2020 school year that
ultimately led to Ms Tudorfiling this lawsuit?
Like what was the breakingpoint?

Speaker 2 (09:39):
OK.
So that year her scheduleincluded a morning prep period
and then an afternoon study hall.
The issue was the schooldistrict refused to guarantee
her that afternoon break whereshe could leave campus.
They said they didn't have thestaff to cover her during the
study hall, you know, like alibrarian.
But even though they denied herrequest, ms Tudor actually
ended up taking those off-campusbreaks anyway on 91 out.

(10:02):
But here's the catch she saidthat doing so actually made her
anxiety worse because she feltlike she was breaking the rules.

Speaker 1 (10:11):
So she's caught between a rock and a hard place.

Speaker 2 (10:13):
Totally.
She needs to manage herdisability, but she's worried
about getting in trouble for it.
It's a no-win situation.

Speaker 1 (10:19):
Yeah, it's a tough spot to be in.
Now we have the other side ofthis story too.
The school district laid outtheir arguments in their
response to the complaint, andwe also see their perspective in
the district court's initialdecision.
So what were some of the mainpoints they were making to
defend their actions?
What was their side of thestory?

Speaker 2 (10:39):
Well, right off the bat, they denied a lot of Mrs
Tudor's allegations.
They questioned whether herdisability was as severe as she
claimed and whether theaccommodation she wanted was
actually necessary.

Speaker 1 (10:50):
So challenging her claims right from the start.

Speaker 2 (10:52):
Right.
They also said they offered areasonable alternative that
afternoon's study hall.
But Ms Tudor disagreed withthat.
She didn't think that was anacceptable option and the school
district's big argument whichreally resonated with the
district court was Mrs Tudor'sown admission that she could do
the main parts of her job.

Speaker 1 (11:10):
Right the can she do the job argument.

Speaker 2 (11:13):
Exactly, and they also brought up some procedural
legal arguments about the timingof her EEOC filings and whether
she followed all the propersteps.
So you know they really wentfor it on multiple fronts.

Speaker 1 (11:24):
Like a multi-pronged defense and it worked at the
district court level, at leastinitially, but then the Second

(11:50):
Circuit came in and reallyturned things upside down.

Speaker 2 (11:51):
So let's talk about their decision.
They and then remanded meansthey're sending the case back to
the district court, but theimportant part is they're
sending it back withinstructions.
The district court has toreconsider everything based on
the legal principles the SecondCircuit laid out in their
opinion.
So same facts, but a new lensto look at it all through.

Speaker 1 (12:08):
So it's like they're saying try again, but this time
use the right equation.

Speaker 2 (12:13):
And were there any specific things the Second
Circuit said the district courtneeds to focus on during this
round?

Speaker 1 (12:18):
two, like any particular homework assignments
oh yeah, they gave them a list.
First they have to determineofficially whether Ms Tutor
actually has a qualifyingdisability under the ADA.
Officially whether Ms Tutoractually has a qualifying
disability under the ADA.
The district court had kind ofassumed that in their initial
ruling but it's still a factualquestion that needs to be
addressed.
They need to nail down thatfoundation, first Yep and then

(12:39):
they have to figure out whatwould be a reasonable
accommodation in Ms Tutor'sspecific situation and this is
crucial they have to considerwhether the accommodation she
asked for would be an unduehardship on the school district.
Undue hardship is like a legalthreshold.

Speaker 2 (12:56):
It's like saying is this going to be so costly or
disruptive that it fundamentallychanges how the school operates
?

Speaker 1 (13:01):
Exactly, and the Second Circuit also said the
district court needs to takeinto account Mrs Tudor's past
history of receiving theaccommodation and how the
school's policies changed overtime, right that whole back and
forth we talked about earlier.
So it's not just about thecurrent situation, it's about
the context.

Speaker 2 (13:18):
Yeah, the whole picture.

Speaker 1 (13:20):
Well, this has been a really in-depth look at a
complicated case.
So for our listener, who's beenfollowing along soaking it all
in, what's the biggest takeawayfrom this whole deep dive?
What should they be thinkingabout as they go about their day
?

Speaker 2 (13:33):
The key takeaway is this you don't have to be
completely unable to do your jobto be eligible for an
accommodation under the ADA.
It's not about barely scrapingby.
The focus now is on whether theaccommodation is reasonable
given the limitations and paincaused by your disability, and
that's really about creating awork environment that's truly

(13:54):
fair and supportive, wherepeople with disabilities can not
just exist but thrive.

Speaker 1 (13:59):
That's a powerful message.
In this case, it really exposesa tension that I think a lot of
workplaces are grappling with.
On one hand, employers wantclear policies, efficiency,
things to run smoothly,indicatorization, right Right.
But then there's this legal andethical obligation to
accommodate individual employeeswith disabilities, and those
two things don't always line upperfectly.

Speaker 2 (14:20):
It's a balancing act.

Speaker 1 (14:22):
And I think the big question moving forward is, as
we understand more and moreabout disability and how it
affects people at work, how doworkplaces adapt to become
genuinely inclusive?
How do we go beyond justchecking boxes and create
environments where everyone cancontribute their best work?
This ruling, it definitelygives us a lot to chew on.

Speaker 2 (14:40):
Food for thought.
Thanks for joining us on thisdeep dive.