Tenth Circuit Emphasizes the Importance of Reasonable Flexibility of Employer Policies in Response to Employee Disability Accommodation Requests
A.J. Peters, Of Counsel
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently issued a decision which demonstrates the limits to which courts will defer to employers’ judgment when they rely on company policies to determine which elements of a particular job are, or are not, essential for disability accommodation purposes. In particular, the court’s decision in Hampton v. Utah Department of Corrections sheds light on the dangers of relying, without any individualized inquiry, on company policy alone when evaluating which functions of a job are “essential” in response to a request for a reasonable workplace accommodation.
Hampton v. Utah Department of Corrections - Facts
In Hampton,[1] a corrections officer, Robert Hampton, sued his former employer (the Utah Department of Corrections (“UDC”)) and brought claims of failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which applies to federal employees and shares the same standards for disability discrimination as the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”).
Mr. Hampton was born without the second and fifth digits of each of his hands as the result of a congenital birth condition. Consequently, he encountered difficulty with grasping and other hand functions. Mr. Hampton began his employment in a non-permanent position that did not require him to be armed, but to obtain a permanent position, he was required to train on and be qualified to carry a firearm. In particular, the UDC required use of “department-issued firearms” as set forth in a departmental Firearms Policy. The only approved handguns were Glock-brand handguns. Although Mr. Hampton passed his firearms training, he repeatedly expressed concern over safety in using a Glock handgun, requesting permission to use another brand of handgun instead.
Shortly after his accommodation request, which UDC denied, UDC terminated Mr. Hampton for alleged violations of unrelated policies. Mr. Hampton alleged that UDC’s reasons for his termination were a pretext for disability discrimination, including disparate treatment, retaliation, and a failure to accommodate his request for an alternative firearm.
The District Court and Appellate Decisions
To prove his prima facie claim of UDC’s failure to accommodate his disability, Mr. Hampton was required to show that (1) he was disabled, (2) he was otherwise qualified for the job, and (3) he made a request for a plausible or facially reasonable accommodation. UDC did not dispute Mr. Hampton’s disability or qualifications for the job, but rather challenged his alternative firearm request as facially unreasonable because the terms of the Firearms Policy specified the firearms that could (and could not) be used on the job.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of UDC and, in so doing, found that compliance with the Firearms Policy on department-issued handguns was an essential function of the job and, therefore, the accommodation request was facially unreasonable.
The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded Mr. Hampton’s failure-to-accommodate claim. The court noted that, while courts must largely defer to the employer with respect to essential functions of a job, an inflexibility on employer policies or judgments would defeat the legislative objective of reasonably accommodating a worker with a disability. The court emphasized that Congress listed the acquisition or modification of job-related equipment and devices as an example of what a reasonable accommodation may be. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit rejected the notion that an employer may simply point to a neutral rule — such as the policy allowing only for use of department-issued firearms — as an automatic exemption from reasonably accommodating requests such as the one requested by Mr. Hampton.
On closer examination of the Firearms Policy, the court found that the relevant essential function of Mr. Hampton’s employment was the ability to safely carry and use a firearm, without reference to brand. In remanding the claim, the Tenth Circuit pointed out that its decision would not affect the employer’s potential affirmative defenses, such as whether costs associated with a non-department-issued firearm would cause undue hardship to UDC.
Employer Takeaways
Reasonable accommodation questions are necessarily fact-specific inquiries for employers. This Tenth Circuit opinion highlights (1) how important it is for employers to seriously consider disability accommodation requests, (2) how employers need to be flexible in their interpretation of existing policies that may, on their face, conflict with accommodation requests, and (3) how the essential functions of a job need to be precisely defined in order for courts to rely upon the same when evaluating failure to accommodate claims.
Campbell Litigation is available to assist employers with all manner of state and federal employment litigation as well as workplace policies and decisions about disability accommodations.
[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/21-4127/21-4127-2023-12-04.html.