David Lee Shulick sued the State of Wyoming, the Wyoming Department of Corrections (WDOC), and the Wyoming Department of Administration & Information—Human Resources in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, raising claims of disability discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all four claims, and Shulick appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Factual Overview
David Lee Shulick, a former correctional officer at the Wyoming State Penitentiary (WSP), requested reasonable accommodations for his medical conditions in February 2019. In June 2019, Shulick applied for a correctional captain position but was not selected. He alleged that he experienced various instances of retaliation after making complaints to the WDOC, including a random drug test, verbal counseling, and changes in his work environment. In April 2020, the WDOC implemented a mask requirement due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Shulick refused to wear a mask, citing medical reasons, and was ultimately dismissed from his employment after declining reassignment to positions that would accommodate his inability to wear a mask.
Legal Analysis
Disability Discrimination: The court found that Shulick failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, as he did not provide admissible evidence that his disability was a determining factor in the WDOC’s decision not to hire or reinterview him for the captain position. The court also determined that the WDOC provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not promoting Shulick, and he failed to show that these reasons were a pretext for discrimination.
Retaliation: The court concluded that none of the actions Shulick alleged as retaliation were materially adverse, as he was not reassigned, the drug test was part of WDOC policy, and the other instances were merely alterations to his job environment. Shulick did not present evidence that the alleged retaliatory instances harmed his job prospects or disadvantaged him in any way.
Hostile Work Environment: The court determined that no rational fact finder could conclude that any of the instances Shulick alleged had altered the conditions of his employment. Shulick’s opening brief failed to challenge this determination or adequately pursue a hostile work environment claim.
Failure to Accommodate: The court found that the WDOC established the mask requirement as an essential function and that Shulick’s requested accommodation of not wearing a mask or only wearing a face shield was facially unreasonable. The court also determined that Shulick failed to show that the WDOC did not engage in the interactive process to identify potential reasonable accommodations, as they offered him several opportunities for reassignment. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants on all four claims and its denial of Shulick’s motion for an extension to file a supplemental response to the summary judgment motion.
Schrag on Law 