Case: United States v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

On December 22, 2022, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to resolve allegations that the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) violated Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Title I of the ADA requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities, including adjusting employee schedules, when it would not pose an undue hardship to the employer. The lawsuit alleged that ODRC discriminated against a correctional officer, the complainant, on the basis of his disability (Type I diabetes) by failing to make reasonable accommodations to his known physical limitations. The complaint sought injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. Specifically, the complaint sought to enjoin the defendant from engaging in discriminatory employment practices, require the defendant to modify its policies in accordance with the ADA, allow the complainant to work a day shift as a reasonable accommodation, and award compensatory damages. The case was assigned to Judge Christopher A. Boyko.

The complainant worked for ODRC at Lorain Correctional Institution, with the rank of Lieutenant. At Lorain, a Lieutenant may be assigned to work one of four shifts; the first shift (5:30 am - 3:30 pm) and the Administrative Lieutenant shift (7:30 am - 3:30 pm) are considered “day shifts.” In 2016, when the complainant was promoted to Lieutenant, he was assigned to work a 1:30 pm - 9:30 pm shift. In late 2016, the complainant was hospitalized twice for health issues related to his blood sugar levels. Following these hospitalizations, the complainant was reassigned to work the first shift.

In 2019, the complainant was informed that he would be reassigned to work the 1:30 pm - 9:30 pm shift. The complainant’s doctor advised that complainant needed to keep working a day shift, because working a night shift would make it harder to manage his blood sugar levels, which would cause the complainant physical harm. The complainant then met with Lorain’s Human Resources Director, to request to remain on the day shift as a reasonable accommodation for his Type 1 diabetes, and provided a supporting letter from his endocrinologist. The request was denied, and the complainant was reassigned to the night shift. He made another request in August 2019; in response, ODRC and the complainant’s endocrinologist exchanged letters in which the endocrinologist informed ODRC of what could happen to the complainant as a result of unstable blood sugar levels: increased seizures, kidney disease, and vision problems. The Major in charge of shift assignments was not informed of these health consequences and denied the complainant’s request for reasonable accommodation again. On August 30, 2019, the complainant filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Following an investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to conclude that the complainant had been discriminated against on the basis of his disability.

Also on December 22, 2022, the parties filed a consent decree that proposed general injunctive relief, reporting requirements for ODRC, specific remedial relief for the complainant, and enforcement procedures. Specifically, when ODRC had reason to believe that an accommodation may be necessary, or when an ODRC employee requested a reasonable accommodation, ODRC would engage in an interactive process to discuss that reasonable accommodation. ODRC was given 60 days to make revisions to its policy so that it was compliant with the ADA and the consent decree. ODRC would also provide live training on the requirements of the ADA using a DOJ-approved trainer. ODRC was also required to submit a report six months after the entry of the consent decree, and then submit yearly reports. The reports were to contain an acknowledgement that ODRC had complied with the consent decree and a notification of any lawsuit alleging that ODRC had discriminated on the basis of disability. Finally, within 15 days of entry of the consent decree, ODRC was to return the complainant to a day shift and offer him $50,000 as compensatory damages.

On January 31, 2023, the court entered the consent decree and dismissed the case, but retained jurisdiction to enforce compliance for the duration of the consent decree (three years).