A federal judge last month agreed a jury would decide whether the Colorado Department of Corrections intentionally discriminated against an incarcerated man by imposing restrictions on him after he failed to report to work because of his disability.

However, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang observed plaintiff Charles Williams is not entitled to most types of financial compensation even if he were to prevail, leaving only the possibility of a tiny amount of nominal damages.

“Given the very narrow relief that remains available to Plaintiff, the Parties are strongly encouraged to discuss whether alternative dispute resolution would be preferable to trial,” she wrote in a June 20 order.

Williams was formerly incarcerated at Buena Vista Correctional Complex and he suffered from chronic back pain. Beginning in mid-September 2019, he was assigned to a food service job. His medical restrictions rendered him unable to work without accommodation and the food supervisor returned Williams to his housing unit each day Williams reported for work.

One day, Williams told a corrections officer he would not be reporting to his job because of his back pain. Later that day, he received a medical “lay-in,” excusing him from work for 10 days. However, the prison terminated Williams from his work assignment for his failure to appear and later reclassified him to a status with fewer privileges.

Williams sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act and its precursor, the Rehabilitation Act. A federal judge originally dismissed the lawsuit but in 2022, the federal appeals court based in Denver determined the claims were viable after all.

The corrections department moved to end the lawsuit in its favor, arguing the loss of privileges was unconnected to Williams’ disability.

“Williams’ reclassification was based on his refusal to report to work, rather than any medical condition he had or the denial of any accommodation he might have been given as a result of such conditions,” wrote the Colorado Attorney General’s Office.

Williams responded his failure to report to work was intertwined with his disability.

“If Williams had a heart attack or fell into a coma moments before he reported to work, would he have been sanctioned for missing work because he only received a medical lay-in slip afterward?” wrote his attorney, Samuel Weiss.

Although Wang found no indication Williams’ discipline amounted to a failure to accommodate his disability, she believed Williams supplied enough evidence for a jury to determine the disability prompted him to miss work, which led to his discipline and amounted to intentional discrimination.

Wang noted neither side made a robust argument for or against Williams’ theory. But “because Defendant has not made arguments or cited authority demonstrating that Plaintiff’s theory is not applicable in this case,” she wrote, the claim could proceed to trial.

Because Williams suffered no loss of incomd and federal law ruled out certain damages available to him, plus recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent barred Williams from receiving a monetary award for emotional distress, Wang noted very little relief was actually on the table.

The case is Williams v. Colorado Department of Corrections.