Janae Ruppert
by Janae Ruppert
As an employer, you exhaustingly hear the repeated recommendation to not only have detailed written policies, but to ensure those policies are followed. Company policies generally ensure compliance with laws and regulations, give guidance for decision-making, and streamline internal processes. Typically, employers can overcome significant consequences by consistently enforcing their policies and procedures.
However, when confronted with accommodation situations, sometimes employers need to step away from the policies and conduct a deeper factual analysis to support a decision. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals recently provided useful guidance on how to properly address an accommodation request which may violate an internal policy. The court sent a case back for a trial after finding that just because a corrections officer’s requested accommodation violated the employer’s neutral policy, inconsistency with the policy by itself, did not render the request unreasonable.
Hampton’s Accommodation Request
Robert Hampton was born missing the second and fifth digits on both hands, the result of a congenital birth condition. Because of this disability, Hampton has difficulty grasping, pulling, and performing other functions with his hands.
In May 2016, the Utah Department of Corrections hired Hampton to serve as a Corrections Officer. UDC had adopted a Firearms Policy that required corrections officers to qualify with and use only Glock handguns on the job. Hampton was concerned about his ability to qualify with and safely use the approved Glock handguns because of his disability. Despite his concerns, Hampton successfully completed the firearms training, qualifying with a Glock.
Even after qualifying, Hampton was still worried about using the Glock style handgun. He requested an accommodation to use a Springfield 1911 instead. Unfortunately, UDC did not meaningfully engage in the interactive process and failed to respond to Hampton’s request. Hampton was eventually terminated by the warden who was unaware of his accommodation request.
The Importance of Interactive Accommodation Review
Hampton sued UDC, claiming they failed to make reasonable accommodations for his disability. To be successful, Hampton was required to show that his request to use a Springfield 1911 was reasonable. Whether a request is reasonable depends on whether the accommodation would enable the employee to perform the essential functions of his job.
In Hampton’s case, the analysis turned on whether using a handgun manufactured by a particular company – Glock – was an essential job function. Unfortunately for UDC, Hampton’s commanders did not communicate very effectively with him in response to his accommodation request. Under the ADA, employers are strongly encouraged to engage in an interactive process with an employee who has requested an accommodation. By doing so, employers can learn about the employee’s limitations, review the essential functions of the position, discuss options and effectively document their consideration of the employee’s request. UDC did not follow the interactive process, and, as a result, the only evidence to support its position that using the Glock handgun was an essential function was its Firearms Policy.
Generally, courts defer to the employer’s judgment as to what job functions are essential. To demonstrate essential functions, employers typically use policies and job descriptions to support their position that a specific task is job-related, uniformly enforced, and consistent with business necessity. That is exactly what UDC did in this case. It urged the trial court to dismiss the lawsuit arguing that the policy approves only Glock models and that Hampton’s request for a Springfield 1911 was a violation of the policy and therefore an unreasonable accommodation request. The trial court agreed and dismissed Hampton’s suit.
Neutral Policies and Discrimination – The Tenth Circuit’s Ruling
The Tenth Circuit disagreed with the trial court. While the employer’s judgment regarding essential functions is entitled to significant weight, the court reasoned that the simple fact that an accommodation would result in a disabled worker violating a rule (in this case, a written policy) that others must obey cannot, in and of itself, make the accommodation unreasonable. The court pointed out that applying an automatic exemption to any accommodation request which may be inconsistent with an employer’s neutral rules would defeat the ADA’s intended objectives. For example, neutral break policies would automatically prevent an accommodation of an individual who may need additional breaks to attend medical appointments.
The court also noted that the ADA has provided specific examples of reasonable accommodations, which include: job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, and acquisition or modification of equipment or devices. The court concluded that Hampton’s request to use a Springfield 1911 fit neatly within the category of a request for alternative equipment under the ADA. As a result, Hampton was entitled to ask a jury if UDC failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation. Hampton v. Utah Department of Corrections, Case No. 1:18-CV- 00079-CMR (10th Cir. 12/4/23).
Lessons Learned
First, employers are practically required to engage in the interactive process with the employee once an accommodation is requested. The ADA does not say that directly, but failing to do so makes it very difficult to defeat an ADA claim. As a result, you should not simply disregard an employee’s request outright because it appears unreasonable or is contrary to an internal policy, practice, or rule. The interactive process provides you an opportunity to gain information about the nature of the individual’s disability and the limitations which may impact their ability to perform what you believe are essential functions. Gathering this information allows you to conduct a thorough assessment as to whether the request would pose any undue hardship or eliminate an essential function of their job. UDC may have had persuasive reasons why Hampton should not be permitted to use a Springfield rather than a Glock, but it did not develop and document the reasons the policy required Glocks as part of the interactive process. Hampton’s case reaffirms the importance of working with employees and attempting to accommodate them to be better able to defend against claims if you deny a request.
Second, don’t discount the significance in having detailed job descriptions and policies in place to assist in meeting your burden that certain job functions are essential. The 10th Circuit’s position isn’t a blanket ruling that a request which violates an employer’s neutral policy is automatically reasonable and must be granted. Rather, the court emphasized the importance of understanding “why” the accommodation is sought. If the accommodation seeks to eliminate an essential function of the job, it is unreasonable. However, if the accommodation is sought to enable the employee to perform the essential function, it may be a reasonable request. In Hampton’s position, the essential function was the ability to use a firearm effectively, not necessarily a Glock. This essential function analysis will require your organization to fully understand the employee’s limitations and critically review those limitations against the purpose of your organization’s policies or rules, instead of just applying the rules.
