A federal judge this month rejected an attempt by the Colorado Department of Corrections to slash a jury’s $3.5 million award to an incarcerated man who missed thousands of meals, defecated on himself and endured physical pain because prison officials did not accommodate his disability in violation of federal law.

U.S. District Court Judge S. Kato Crews gave an icy reception to the government’s request to reduce the nine-person jury’s verdict to less than $1 million. He noted the Colorado Attorney General’s Office based its motion on legal precedent that existed prior to trial — but had never been raised — and nonexistent or vague citations to the evidence.

“The Court thus finds that a preponderance of competent evidence supports the jury’s award,” Crews wrote in a March 11 order. “It was the jury’s provenance as fact-finder to determine witness credibility, weigh the evidence, draw inferences, resolve conflicts, and ultimately determine the facts.”

Jason Brooks, who was incarcerated at Fremont Correctional Facility, sued the corrections department for violating his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brooks suffered from ulcerative colitis that required him to use the bathroom upwards of 15 times per day. He sought a reasonable accommodation for his disability under the ADA, in the form of being able to go to the cafeteria at the first opportunity so he could consistently plan his bathroom breaks.

Instead, the department offered him an adult diaper. As a result, jurors heard evidence that Brooks missed “thousands of meals” between 2012 and 2018 in order to deal with his incontinence around meal times, lost weight, experienced “stabbing pain” and eventually defecated on himself.

After being instructed they should base their verdict on Brooks’ physical and mental harm, should not be swayed by sympathy and were to determine an amount that would “fairly compensate” Brooks, jurors in 2022 awarded $3.5 million due to the corrections department’s ADA violation.

The government then moved to reduce the award or obtain a new trial, claiming “more egregious” violations of prisoners’ rights received less compensation than Brooks’ “brief and transient” pain.

“All of this was for an ADA violation that, again, did not result in any permanent or even measurable physical injury, and if it resulted in any pain at all, that pain would have only consisted of an unspecified number of episodes of a few minutes of abdominal cramping or pain, at most,” wrote the attorney general’s office. “Put simply, the jury here issued an award that would be much more at home in a lawsuit involving much more egregious facts like deaths or fractured bones or amputations.”

The government also referenced a U.S. Supreme Court decision from April 2022 — eight months before trial — that held emotional distress was not a basis for damages under a different disability rights law than the ADA.

In response, Brooks pointed out the government never raised the Supreme Court’s decision until after trial. Regardless, he argued jurors heard “voluminous” evidence that the corrections department’s ADA violation caused him to miss thousands of meals over more than five years — and dozens of days where he missed all three meals.

“CDOC doesn’t identify a single error made by this Court or Mr. Brooks’s counsel during trial, let alone one that prejudiced the CDOC,” wrote his attorneys. “It doesn’t contest the jury’s verdict as to liability. It doesn’t challenge any of the Court’s evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or verdict form. And it doesn’t cite a single piece of evidence or testimony to support its arguments.”

Crews agreed the government, in contrast to Brooks, neglected to cite specific evidence that would support its position. He found jurors did, in fact, hear testimony about Brooks’ physical injuries and it would not be appropriate to override the jury’s determination that Brooks was credible. Finally, Crews agreed he would not consider the government’s belated reference to the Supreme Court’s decision.

“Defendant had abundant time to raise this issue before trial,” he wrote.

The case is Brooks v. Colorado Department of Corrections.