Federal Judge Rules Against Plaintiff in Landmark Americans with Disabilities Act Case, Decision Sparks Controversy

GREELEY, Colo. – A federal judge in Colorado has determined that he lacks the authority to intervene in a case where a plaintiff’s jury award of $3.5 million was intercepted by the state. The plaintiff, Jason Brooks, had filed a lawsuit claiming violations of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). U.S. District Court Judge S. Kato Crews acknowledged the possibility of a narrow path for Brooks to seek enforcement of the payment, but ultimately found no legal precedent that allowed him to reopen the long-running lawsuit.

Brooks, who had been incarcerated in the Colorado Department of Corrections due to securities fraud charges, suffered from ulcerative colitis. He sought a reasonable accommodation for his disability while in prison, specifically the ability to plan his bathroom breaks by going to the cafeteria at the earliest opportunity. Instead, the department offered him adult diapers. As a result, Brooks missed numerous meals and experienced significant physical discomfort.

After a nine-year legal battle, a jury awarded Brooks $3.5 million in late 2022 for the ADA violations. However, last month, Crews rejected the government’s challenge to the award. The case resurfaced when Brooks filed an emergency motion after the state intercepted his payment. His attorney argued that although the underlying criminal case included a separate restitution order of $5.1 million, it was improper for the state to divert his jury award.

During the hearing, Crews expressed skepticism about his jurisdiction to get involved in the collection efforts. Although Brooks’ attorney argued that the federal nature of the ADA violations provided a basis for the court’s involvement, Crews found no support for this novel theory. The Colorado Attorney General’s Office clarified that the state had issued a check for the jury award but the 19th Judicial District administratively intercepted it to satisfy Brooks’ restitution obligation.

Crews ultimately declined Brooks’ request to intervene but left the door open for him to file a separate motion to enforce the monetary judgment. The case highlights the tension between a state’s authority to collect restitution and a plaintiff’s right to receive the damages awarded by a federal jury. This ongoing dispute serves as a reminder of the complex legal issues that can arise in cases involving violations of civil rights laws.

The case is still ongoing, and the parties await further proceedings to determine the fate of the $3.5 million jury award.