A federal judge was wrong to dismiss as frivolous a Colorado inmate’s lawsuit alleging prison officials discriminated against him on the basis of his disability, the federal appeals court based in Denver has ruled.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court recognized more than two decades ago that the Americans with Disabilities Act “unambiguously” covers state detainees, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed Charles Williams’ allegations against the Colorado Department of Corrections had merit after all.

“The district court should not have dismissed the claim as frivolous,” wrote Chief Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich in an Aug. 25 order.

Williams is incarcerated at Buena Vista Correctional Complex, where he experiences chronic back pain and nerve damage that affect his ability to walk, stand and bend. Despite medical restrictions on his activities, Buena Vista assigned Williams to kitchen work in the summer of 2019, which he alleged was retaliation for a prior lawsuit.

Because Williams was physically unable to complete kitchen tasks, he sought and received medical reprieves. He tried to get a form that would allow him to request an accommodation for his disability, but did not receive one. Instead, he reported to the kitchen daily, only to have staff return him to his cell upon seeing his list of medical restrictions.

On Sept. 23, 2019, Williams saw medical staff for his back pain instead of showing up to the kitchen. Reportedly, a guard told Williams there would be no issue with him failing to report to the kitchen that day.

However, the prison reportedly fired Williams from his job because he had been a no-show. Buena Vista further changed Williams’ prison classification, triggering loss of privileges and less recreation time, which in turn affected Williams’ ability to perform exercises for his back pain.

He sued the corrections department, alleging it violated the ADA by failing to accommodate his disability and by punishing him for his inability to work with the revocation of his privileges. Williams also alleged a similar claim under the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits disability discrimination in federally-funded programs.

Shortly after Williams filed his lawsuit, U.S. Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher recommended dismissing the claims outright. Relying on a 1996 decision of the 10th Circuit that stated neither of the two federal laws covers prison employment, Gallagher determined Williams’ claims could not succeed. Further, Williams had not alleged he was fired “because of his disability,” but rather “because he failed to report to work.”

“For these reasons, the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims are legally frivolous and should be dismissed,” Gallagher wrote.

Williams objected to the recommendation, arguing the magistrate judge had misinterpreted the allegations. His disability prevented him from performing his assigned job and yet the corrections department had failed to accommodate Williams — instead punishing him for his disability-related emergency, Williams contended.

Nevertheless, U.S. District Court Senior Judge Lewis T. Babcock accepted Gallagher’s recommendation and agreed it was a frivolous case, finding that “any appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith.”

The 10th Circuit panel reviewing Williams’ case acknowledged it had, in the past, ruled that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act did not apply to prison employment. But in 1998, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey that found the ADA “unambiguously extends to state prison inmates” participating in prison programs.

Tymkovich, in the 10th Circuit’s decision, noted that inmate employment is a prison program, and Williams had alleged the Department of Corrections disciplined him when his disability prevented him from performing a job. Therefore, the panel concluded Williams’ case was not frivolous after all given the Yeskey ruling.

The panel also disagreed with Gallagher’s conclusion that Williams had failed to show he was punished for his disability, as opposed to his failure to show up for work. Although the corrections department could conceivably offer arguments that it expected Williams to at least come to the kitchen, “we cannot say they render Williams’s claim indisputably meritless,” Tymkovich wrote.

The case is Williams v. Colorado Department of Corrections.