Employee Survival Guide®
The Employee Survival Guide® is an employees only podcast about everything related to work and working. We will share with you all the information your employer does not want you to know about working and guide you through various work and employment law issues.
The Employee Survival Guide® podcast is hosted by seasoned Employment Law Attorney Mark Carey, who has only practiced in the area of Employment Law for the past 28 years. Mark has seen just about every type of work dispute there is and has filed several hundred work related lawsuits in state and federal courts around the country, including class action suits. He has a no frills and blunt approach to work issues faced by millions of workers nationwide. Mark endeavors to provide both sides to each and every issue discussed on the podcast so you can make an informed decision.
Subscribe to our show in your favorite podcast app including Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, and Overcast.
You can also subscribe to our feed via RSS or XML.
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. Thank you!
For more information, please contact Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, or email at info@capclaw.com.
Also go to our website EmployeeSurvival.com for more helpful information about work and working.
Employee Survival Guide®
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.
OK, so today we're taking a deep dive into a legal case that could have a really big impact for employees with disabilities. It's called Angel Tudor v Whitehall Central School District and you know you actually sent us a pretty amazing set of documents to work with for this one.
Speaker 2:Yeah, we have the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision itself and the original complaint. Really detailed stuff.
Speaker 1:Right the school district's response to laying out their side of things plus the district court's initial ruling.
Speaker 2:I mean, it's like we have all the pieces of the puzzle here.
Speaker 1:Definitely a multifaceted view. So our goal is to figure out, you know, what's the big legal question at the heart of all this and what does it tell us about the rights of people with disabilities, especially in the workplace, like that's the crucial part.
Speaker 2:Absolutely, and I think having all these documents is so valuable because it's not just the outcome.
Speaker 1:It's the journey.
Speaker 2:It's how we got there. We have the Second Circuit's decision, which is really interesting because it actually overturned an earlier ruling. This was just from March of this year, so very recent.
Speaker 1:So we're talking hot off the presses, legally speaking.
Speaker 2:Exactly. And then we have Ms Tudor's perspective right, Her detailed account of what she went through, the legal arguments she's making. But we also have the school district's response. They're pushing back on a lot of those claims, obviously presenting their own defense. And then that initial district court decision that sets the stage for everything that follows.
Speaker 1:Right, it's like the foundation of this whole appeal process, for everything that follows. Right, it's like the foundation of this whole appeal process and, I think, for our listeners you know the people who really like to get into the weeds of these complex issues this deep dive is especially relevant because it tackles a pretty nuanced area of the law, and that is the right to what's called reasonable accommodation in the workplace, even if you're able to do your job without it.
Speaker 2:Which is the really fascinating part.
Speaker 1:Right, because we're not just talking about whether someone can physically show up and check off the boxes on a job description. The Second Circuit is basically saying the ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, is about making sure everyone has a fair shot, considering the real impact of their disability.
Speaker 2:That's a key point. It's not just about bare minimum function. It's about creating a truly level playing field.
Speaker 1:Exactly so, that shift in thinking. That's the big takeaway here, and it could have some huge implications for workplaces everywhere. So let's jump right in. What was that central legal question the Second Circuit Court of Appeals focused on in their decision?
Speaker 2:Well, the core issue they addressed was whether an employee with a disability is qualified for reasonable accommodation under the ADA, even if they can perform the essential functions of their job without it, and that's a really, really critical distinction.
Speaker 1:Right, Because you might think on the surface, if someone can do the job, why do they need an accommodation? But obviously there's more to it than that. So what did the district court decide initially and what was their rationale?
Speaker 2:OK. So the district court actually ruled in favor of the Whitehall Central School District, granting them what's called a summary judgment. Now, summary judgment basically means the court looked at everything and said listen, there's no real dispute about the basic facts here, so we don't need a full blown trial. We can make a decision based on the documents alone. Exactly, and their reasoning was pretty straightforward. Angel Tudor herself admitted she could perform the essential duties of her teaching job even without 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 a necessary component of her claim, Meaning, in their view, she didn't meet the requirements for proving she was denied a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
Speaker 1:So it seems like a simple can she do the job or not? Kind of analysis.
Speaker 2:Yeah, at that level, yeah, but of course the Second Circuit didn't see it that way.
Speaker 1:Obviously, that's why we're here. So what were the Second Circuit's reasons for disagreeing with that initial ruling? What didn't sit right with them?
Speaker 2:Well, they said it very directly the district court's interpretation, in their words, cannot be squared with the ADA's plain text. And to back that up, they really honed in on specific language in the ADA's definition of a qualified individual, and that definition includes the phrase wait for it, with or without reasonable accommodation. They even quoted the law itself, the part that says it's considered discrimination if an employer doesn't make those reasonable accommodations.
Speaker 1:It's like they're going back to the source code of the law.
Speaker 2:Exactly, and I think the most interesting part is they went out of their way to stress that reasonable accommodations and necessary accommodations are not the same thing at all.
Speaker 1:Okay, so let's dig into that whole with or without phrase. What's the Second Circuit really saying there? Why is that such a big deal?
Speaker 2:Their reading of it is pretty simple. You know lawyers love to overcomplicate things, but sometimes it really is just about the words themselves.
Speaker 1:Sometimes plain English does the trick.
Speaker 2:Exactly, and they basically said. The plain meaning of the statute is this An employee can still be qualified for an accommodation, even if they can technically do their job without it.
Speaker 1:So it's not just about getting the job done, it's about how they're getting it done.
Speaker 2:It's about getting the job done. It's about how they're getting it done Right, and that's a huge shift from how the district court approached it. Now it's less about can you perform the basic tasks and more about is this accommodation reasonable given your disability, and that, I think, is what makes this decision so potentially groundbreaking.
Speaker 1:It broadens the whole conversation. Ok, so the Second Circuit also used this term remedial statute when talking about the ADA. Ok, so the Second Circuit also used this term remedial statute when talking about the ADA. What does that actually mean in the legal world and how did that concept play into their decision?
Speaker 2:OK, so a remedial statute is a law that's meant to fix a specific problem in society. In this case, it's discrimination against people with disabilities.
Speaker 1:Right, it's about solving a problem, not just laying out rules.
Speaker 2:Exactly, and courts are generally supposed to interpret these types of laws broadly, you know, to really address the root of the issue. So the Second Circuit is arguing that if Congress had only wanted employers to provide accommodations that were absolutely essential for someone to do their job, they would have used the word necessary right, but they didn't. They used reasonable, which suggests a much wider scope.
Speaker 1:So it's about removing barriers, creating real opportunities, not just making sure someone can technically clock in and clock out. Now there was another interesting point in the decision. The Second Circuit mentioned that the ADA might require accommodations to address an employee's pain or other effects of their disability, even if, again, they're technically able to do their job. Why is that so important to emphasize?
Speaker 2:I think this really gets to the heart of what reasonable accommodation is supposed to be about, because it goes beyond. You know, can you do the basic tasks of your job? It takes into account the human element. What's the impact of this disability on this person's well-being? Can they actually keep working in the long run without unnecessary suffering? And Second Circuit is saying even if you can grit your teeth and push through it, the ADA might still require an employer to do something reasonable to alleviate that pain. Make things more equitable. It's about a sustainable work environment too.
Speaker 1:It's about working with dignity, not just working through pain, Precisely Okay. So let's shift gears and talk specifically about Angel Tudor's case. What was the accommodation she requested? What was she asking for?
Speaker 2:She was asking for something pretty straightforward Permission to leave campus for one 15-minute break during each of her morning and afternoon prep periods. These were times when she wasn't directly supervising students and she wanted to use that time to manage her PTSD symptoms.
Speaker 1:Now the court documents do go into some detail about Mrs Tudor's diagnosis of PTSD. What kind of information did her amended complaint include that really gave us a sense of how this condition was affecting her life and her work?
Speaker 2: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 of details and it's a pretty upsetting story, to be honest. Ms Tudor explains that her PTSD stems from past sexual harassment and assault and it's affecting her in a lot of ways.
Speaker 1:It sounds like it's really impacting her neurological functioning.
Speaker 2:Yeah, she says it interferes with everyday tasks. It causes a stutter which obviously affects her communication as a teacher. She has severe nightmares, sometimes to the point of being physically sick. She's on multiple medications to manage the symptoms and she's even required psychiatric hospitalization three times because of her PTSD. The complaint also mentions that she actually couldn't work for four years because of how severe her condition was and then in 2008, it seems, her symptoms got worse again because of some incidents at work.
Speaker 1: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 ongoing struggle. Now the complaint also touches on Ms Tudor's past experiences with accommodations from the school district. What was that history like and what changed that led to this whole lawsuit?
Speaker 2:Well, here's the thing. Ms Tudor had actually been granted a similar accommodation back in 2008. They let her leave campus for breaks and she felt like at the time that was really key to being able to do her job well. But then in 2016, things changed. There was a new administration and they put in place a new policy that said no teachers could leave school grounds during their prep periods, so her existing accommodation was basically revoked.
Speaker 1:Yeah, pretty much that said, no teachers could leave school grounds during their prep periods, so her existing accommodation was basically revoked?
Speaker 2:Yeah, pretty much. And when Ms Studer tried to use her accommodation, she was actually reprimanded for it, considered insubordinate. She told the new administration about her previous accommodation but they claimed there wasn't enough documentation on file and instead of, you know, providing more information, right then she ended up taking sick leave and then leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. It's really frustrating when a system that was working for you is suddenly taken away.
Speaker 1:Absolutely, and it puts someone in a really tough position. So what was happening during the 2019-2020 school year that ultimately led to Ms Tudor filing this lawsuit? Like what was the breaking point?
Speaker 2:OK. So that year her schedule included a morning prep period and then an afternoon study hall. The issue was the school district refused to guarantee her that afternoon break where she could leave campus. They said they didn't have the staff to cover her during the study hall, you know, like a librarian. But even though they denied her request, ms Tudor actually ended up taking those off-campus breaks anyway on 91 out. But here's the catch she said that doing so actually made her anxiety worse because she felt like she was breaking the rules.
Speaker 1:So she's caught between a rock and a hard place.
Speaker 2:Totally. She needs to manage her disability, but she's worried about getting in trouble for it. It's a no-win situation.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's a tough spot to be in. Now we have the other side of this story too. The school district laid out their arguments in their response to the complaint, and we also see their perspective in the district court's initial decision. So what were some of the main points they were making to defend their actions? What was their side of the story?
Speaker 2:Well, right off the bat, they denied a lot of Mrs Tudor's allegations. They questioned whether her disability was as severe as she claimed and whether the accommodation she wanted was actually necessary.
Speaker 1:So challenging her claims right from the start.
Speaker 2:Right. They also said they offered a reasonable alternative that afternoon's study hall. But Ms Tudor disagreed with that. She didn't think that was an acceptable option and the school district's big argument which really resonated with the district court was Mrs Tudor's own admission that she could do the main parts of her job.
Speaker 1:Right the can she do the job argument.
Speaker 2:Exactly, and they also brought up some procedural legal arguments about the timing of her EEOC filings and whether she followed all the proper steps. So you know they really went for it on multiple fronts.
Speaker 1:Like a multi-pronged defense and it worked at the district court level, at least initially, but then the Second Circuit came in and really turned things upside down.
Speaker 2:So let's talk about their decision. They and then remanded means they're sending the case back to the district court, but the important part is they're sending it back with instructions. The district court has to reconsider everything based on the legal principles the Second Circuit laid out in their opinion. So same facts, but a new lens to look at it all through.
Speaker 1:So it's like they're saying try again, but this time use the right equation.
Speaker 2:And were there any specific things the Second Circuit said the district court needs to focus on during this round?
Speaker 1:two, like any particular homework assignments oh yeah, they gave them a list. First they have to determine officially whether Ms Tutor actually has a qualifying disability under the ADA. Officially whether Ms Tutor actually has a qualifying disability under the ADA. The district court had kind of assumed that in their initial ruling but it's still a factual question that needs to be addressed.
Speaker 1:They need to nail down that foundation, first Yep and then they have to figure out what would be a reasonable accommodation in Ms Tutor's specific situation and this is crucial they have to consider whether the accommodation she asked for would be an undue hardship on the school district. Undue hardship is like a legal threshold.
Speaker 2:It's like saying is this going to be so costly or disruptive that it fundamentally changes how the school operates?
Speaker 1:Exactly, and the Second Circuit also said the district court needs to take into account Mrs Tudor's past history of receiving the accommodation and how the school's policies changed over time, right that whole back and forth we talked about earlier. So it's not just about the current situation, it's about the context.
Speaker 2:Yeah, the whole picture.
Speaker 1:Well, this has been a really in-depth look at a complicated case. So for our listener, who's been following along soaking it all in, what's the biggest takeaway from this whole deep dive? What should they be thinking about as they go about their day?
Speaker 2:The key takeaway is this you don't have to be completely unable to do your job to be eligible for an accommodation under the ADA. It's not about barely scraping by. The focus now is on whether the accommodation is reasonable given the limitations and pain caused by your disability, and that's really about creating a work environment that's truly fair and supportive, where people with disabilities can not just exist but thrive.
Speaker 1:That's a powerful message. In this case, it really exposes a tension that I think a lot of workplaces are grappling with. On one hand, employers want clear policies, efficiency, things to run smoothly, indicatorization, right Right. But then there's this legal and ethical obligation to accommodate individual employees with disabilities, and those two things don't always line up perfectly.
Speaker 2:It's a balancing act.
Speaker 1:And I think the big question moving forward is, as we understand more and more about disability and how it affects people at work, how do workplaces adapt to become genuinely inclusive? How do we go beyond just checking boxes and create environments where everyone can contribute their best work? This ruling, it definitely gives us a lot to chew on.
Speaker 2:Food for thought. Thanks for joining us on this deep dive.