Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D. Colo.: Hearing-impaired deputy who resigned over safety concerns advances ADA claims, (Oct 21, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

“At least a few courts throughout the country have concluded that a jury could find that a plaintiff was constructively discharged when they were subject to an unsafe or dangerous working environment.”

A sheriff’s deputy with a hearing impairment—who had been assigned to train in the jail setting and who resigned after having been denied her requested accommodations—sufficiently established that her working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person in her position would have had no choice but to resign, a federal court in Colorado ruled, denying summary judgment on her ADA disability discrimination claim. Nor was her employer entitled to summary judgment on her failure-to-accommodate claim, said the court, finding among other things that whether or not she was successfully completing her training did not negate her identified concerns regarding workplace safety (Johnson v. Larimer County Sheriff’s Office, No. 24-cv-00394-NYW-NRN (D. Colo. Oct. 20, 2026)).

Hearing issues. The employee, who reads lips and sometimes uses hearing aids, was hired by the sheriff’s office in May 2022. Her job training included “hands-on training in the jail setting” and she reported to her supervisor that she had difficulty hearing radio traffic when working at the jail. Not only did a training officer report in July that she employee was “missing [a lot] of radio traffic,” but also she claimed she had trouble hearing what kitchen staff was telling her over the telephone, including when kitchen workers were coming back after a shift, which was important because they needed to be searched for anything they could have on them that could be a safety issue.

She also claimed there were times she was unable to hear officers giving directives to lock down a certain part of the jail, she could not hear jail medical staff giving instructions about inmate medications and was worried she would pass the incorrect medication to the inmates, and she could not hear radio and intercom communications advising her about inmate movement. Her supervisor testified that “if a deputy is not hearing things, it can cause a serious safety issue,” both for the deputies and the detainees.”

Accommodation requests. Because over-the-ear amplification devices used by other deputies did not work with her hearing aids, she and her supervisor discussed different earpieces she could try. When nothing helped, she requested radio earpieces that would work with her prescribed hearing aids including a hearing device recommended by her audiologist that she could not afford.

Resignation. Although her supervisor relayed her request to an HR generalist, he responded that it was sheriff’s office policy to not provide “earpieces of any other type of assistive hearing devices” to jail deputies. The employee subsequently resigned from her employment with the sheriff's office.

Direct evidence? As an initial matter, the court addressed the employee’s assertion she had direct evidence of discrimination. She argued that the blanket policy to not provide any assistive hearing devices for jail deputies because they are “personal medical devices,” even if requested or required as a reasonable accommodation for a hearing disability, “is precisely the type of discriminatory employment practice the ADA is intended to eradicate.”

Declining to address this argument, the court noted that in discrimination cases, a plaintiff must ultimately prove that the defendant, “either directly or indirectly,... intentionally discriminated against” them and here, the sheriff’s office did not move for summary judgment on the basis that it lacked discriminatory intent. Rather, it argued that the employee could not establish that she was constructively discharged. Thus, the court explained, it “need to rule whether Plaintiff has adduced direct evidence of intentional discrimination.”

Constructive discharge. In support of its assertion the employee could not show she was constructively discharged, the sheriff’s office argued that she was treated well by her colleagues, no one made disparaging remarks about her hearing, and her supervisor tried to help her find an earpiece that would work for her or to reassign her to another position. But while the employer focused on its actions and interactions with the employee, she pointed to the impact her disability and the alleged failure to accommodate had on the safety of her working environment, said the court, including evidence she had trouble hearing critical information over the jail radio and intercom system and that “the issues that [she] was experiencing would have caused serious safety concerns.”

As she neared the completion of her training, she alleged that she was aware that she would not have training officer to back her up while working at the jail and she was “really worried about [her] safety and about being able to maintain safety within the jail” and was “increasingly concerned about being placed into the jail environment on [her] own.” Noting that at least a few courts throughout the country have concluded that a jury could find that a plaintiff was constructively discharged when they were subject to an unsafe or dangerous working environment, the court here found a reasonable jury could conclude that the employee’s working conditions were objectively intolerable. In so ruling, the court stressed that it “does not pass on the remaining elements of her claim, including whether the alleged adverse action was ‘because of” Plaintiff’s disability.”

Failure to accommodate. Regarding the employee’s failure-to-accommodate claim, the sheriff’s office first argued that it was not clear she even needed an accommodation because “she was successfully completing her training to be a jail deputy.” Not only was that disputed, but also whether she was successfully completing her training, said the court, did not negate her workplace safety concerns.

The sheriff’s office next argued that because she admitted she did not always wear her hearing aids while she was working in the jail, she “should not be permitted to create liability for her employer by failing to utilize a personal use item she possessed and which may have aided her ability to hear.” But not only was it unclear what portion of the employee’s failure-to-accommodate claim this argument attacked, the sheriff’s office did not cite any legal authority in support of this assertion. Further, said the court, the argument was speculative and at best created a genuine issue of material fact and whether her requested accommodation was reasonable or necessary was a question for the jury to decide.

Interactive process. And while the sheriff’s office, pointing to actions taken by the employee’s supervisor, also argued that it properly engaged in the interactive process, the employee argued that it was the HR generalist, not her supervisor, who was responsible for engaging in the interactive process and he did not do so. Noting again that fact disputes cannot be resolved at on summary judgment, the court found the employee put forth sufficient evidence that the sheriff’s office, through the HR generalist, failed to engage in the interactive process.

Rejecting finally the sheriff’s office’s assertion the employee “never complained that she wasn’t being accommodated despite knowing that she could lodge a complaint if she really believed she was experiencing any form of discrimination,” the court again it unclear what part of her claim this argument attacked and, in any event, its accompanying arguments essentially asked the court to weigh the evidence in its favor and ignore material fact disputes.

Based on all of this, the court found summary judgment inappropriate on both claims by the employee.

The case is No. 24-cv-00394-NYW-NRN.

Judge: Wang, N.

Attorneys: Paula D. Greisen (Greisen Medlock) for Jillian Johnson. David Patrick Ayraud, Larimer County Attorney's Office, for John Feyen and Larimer County Sheriff’s Office.

MainStory: TopStory DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Safety ColoradoNews GCNNews