Judge Lewis Kaplan (left) wrote the opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; Judge Gerald Tjoflat dissented.

With a 2-to-1 vote, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals revived a discrimination suit brought by a former Union City police detective who said she was fired after refusing to submit to a voluntary Taser shock as part of her training.

Former Detective Jacqueline Lewis suffered a mild heart attack the year before the Taser training was implemented, and her doctor recommended that she not be subjected to an electrical shock.

Lewis was placed on unpaid administrative leave and was still on it when she was fired for being absent without leave.

In 2012, Lewis, who is black and now 55 years old, sued Union City and Police Chief Charles Odom in Georgia's Northern District for claims including disability discrimination, race and gender discrimination, as well as violation of her equal protection rights.

Acting upon the recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Janet King, Judge Richard Story of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed all of Lewis' claims in 2015.

A published opinion issued Dec. 15 and penned by visiting Judge Lewis Kaplan of New York's Southern District, with the concurrence of Judge Robin Rosenbaum, wrote for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that Lewis' disability, race and gender claims were sufficiently pleaded to be decided by a jury, although it sustained the trial court's dismissal of her equal protection claims.

Dissenting Judge Gerald Tjoflat said Lewis had not provided a basis for any of her claims and that Story was correct in dismissing them. 

The ruling “was the right result that was a long time in coming,” said lead plaintiffs attorney Cheryl Legare of Legare, Attwood & Wolfe.

“While I am thrilled at how this case will help many other plaintiffs, I am also thrilled that Jackie will now get her day in court,” said Legare, who represents Lewis along with Buckley Beal partner Brian Sutherland and Paul Chichester IV of Gordon & Rees.

“This is obviously a great result for our client, who we believe we will prove was discriminated against and denied a reasonable accommodation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act,” Sutherland said.

Union City and Odom are represented by Sharon Morgan and Tracy Glanton of Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, who said via email that their clients are “obviously disappointed.”

“We are currently evaluating all of our options,” said Glanton. “It will likely be a few more days before a decision is made regarding which option will be pursued.”

As detailed in court filings, Edwards joined the department in 2001 and was promoted to detective in 2008. She suffered a “small” heart attack in early 2009. A catheterization showed “no clot and no disease,” and her treating cardiologist is quoted as saying her heart suffered “minimal to small” damage.

Odom changed a policy in 2010 that formerly allowed officers to choose whether to carry Tasers, pepper spray or expandable batons, mandating that all officer be issued Tasers.

Part of the training—which is not required by the manufacturer—was that each officer undergo a five-second Taser shock.

In June 2010, Edwards was ordered to undergo the training. She first consulted with her primary physician, who wrote to Odom that Lewis had “several chronic conditions including a heart condition” and that she would recommend a Taser or pepper spray not be used near her.

Upon receipt of the letter, Lewis was immediately placed on administrative leave without pay until her doctor cleared her to work. The letter did not indicate how long she would be on leave but said she could use her accrued vacation and sick time to keep being paid.

Lewis requested that she be allowed to return to work a couple of weeks later, but that request was denied “until your doctor releases you for duty.”

Lewis' doctor was vacationing and attempted to call Odom when she returned but had an incorrect phone number. Lewis was fired after being on leave for 22 days.

In dismissing Lewis' claims, Story ruled her “impairment did not rise to the level of a disability” under the ADA. He also found her stated inability to be exposed to pepper spray or Tasers rendered her unqualified to do her job.

Story also said evidence that two white officers who did not pass certain physical tests and were allowed to take extensive administrative leave time to try to get in shape was not comparable to Lewis' case because they did not have “physical impairments which placed them at risk of harm by being in the building.”

In reversing Story, Kaplan wrote that Lewis' termination “is mysterious in an important respect. She had been placed on unpaid, indefinite administrative leave” and was never given any deadlines for its duration.

“Indeed, at oral argument, defendants conceded that Ms. Lewis was on administrative leave at the moment she was fired—an involuntary, unpaid leave initiated by a superior,” the opinion said.

“[A] jury in these circumstances reasonably could find that the stated reason for terminating Ms. Lewis—that she was absent without leave—was a pretext for one or more other motives.”

Tjoflat disagreed, writing that Lewis failed to “put forth a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence” to demonstrate that she had been the victim of discrimination.

Sutherland said the opinion “reaffirms several important points of employment law,” including the principle that “the employer is not the ultimate arbiter of whether a particular job function is an 'essential function' under the ADA.”