Prison guard’s disability bias suit reinstated

A federal appeals court on Monday reinstated a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by a fired, disabled prison guard who was terminated after his employer did not agree to let him use a non-prescribed handgun.

Robert Hampton was born missing the second and fifth digits on both hands because of a congenital birth condition, and his hand and wrist structures did not have the bones, tendons and muscles associated with those fingers, according to the ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver in Robert Hampton v. Utah Department of Corrections; Does 1-50.

This resulted in his having difficulty grasping, pulling or performing other functions with his hands, according to the ruling.

In May 2016, the Utah Department of Corrections hired Mr. Hampton as a corrections officer, with the warden knowing about both the disability and Mr. Hampton’s possible future need for accommodations, the ruling said.

Some of Mr. Hampton’s assignments required him to carry a firearm.  The only handgun approved under the department’s firearms policy was a Glock. He made queries about using another particular handgun, stating the Glock made it difficult for him to use because of his disability, but did not receive a response from the department. 

He was terminated by the department after an incident involving his handling of another gun, on the basis in part that he had created a hazardous environment.

Mr. Hampton sued the department, alleging it had violated the Rehabilitation Act, which forbids employers that receive federal funds from discriminating against their disabled employees, in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, claiming failure to accommodate, disparate treatment and retaliation.

The court dismissed the case and was overturned on the failure-to-accommodate claim by a three-judge appeals panel, which issued a majority and a concurring opinion.

By the firearm policy’s own terms, and the corrections departments own summary, “the relevant essential function of Mr. Hampton’s employment would seem to be his ability to safely carry and use a firearm – not just a Glock – when required,” the majority ruling said.

“And the accommodation Mr. Hampton requested would, on its face, help him perform that essential function, enabling him to carry a firearm safely, ‘on equal footing with his peers,’” it said, citing Mr. Hampton’s brief.

“At the very least, we would find that Mr. Hampton has raised a genuine issue of material fact on the essential functions of his employment,” it said, in overturning the lower court on its failure-to-accommodate ruling.

The court affirmed dismissal of the disparate treatment and retaliation claims.

Attorneys in the case did not respond to requests for comment.