University of Pennsylvania crest. Photo: Bryan Y.W. Shin, via Wikimedia Commons

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has reinstated discrimination claims that a former University of Pennsylvania police officer brought against the school for allegedly refusing to accommodate a skin condition he suffered that left him unable to shave.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the federal appeals court Aug. 9 reversed a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that tossed Joseph Lewis’ claims alleging constructive discharge, violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and discrimination for failure to provide reasonable accommodations.

The ruling comes more than a year after the case, Lewis v. University of Pennsylvania, went to trial on disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims. That trial ended with a defense verdict.

According to Timothy Creech, who is representing Lewis, last week’s ruling means Lewis can now bring his substantive claims before a jury, whereas during the previous trial he had been unable to argue that his rights had been violated or that the school had failed to reasonably accommodate his condition.

“We felt that the district court had taken away his right to have a jury decide whether his rights were violations and whether this pushed him out of his job as a police officer—a job he loved,” Creech said. “Mr. Lewis is looking forward to the opportunity to be vindicated in front of a jury, and we’re pleased that the Third Circuit has given us that opportunity.”

The university’s police department requires officers to be clean-shaven, but Lewis claimed shaving irritated his face and led to increased risk of infection due to pseudofolliculitis barbae, a condition known as razor bumps, which is common among black men. Lewis claimed he was subjected to discriminatory treatment by supervisors and colleagues, who mocked him for not adhering to the department’s grooming policy. Lewis also claimed he was taken off his normal beat, denied vacation time, and was retaliated against for requesting a disability accommodation to not shave.

He was placed on leave, and ultimately resigned.

Lewis sued contending, among other things, that the university failed to engage in reasonable accommodations, or allow for an exemption to the school’s requirement that employees provide a medical certificate every 60 days.

Although U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter dismissed those claims, the Third Circuit panel, led by Judge D. Brooks Smith, said Pratter did not use the proper standard and that Lewis did not need to expressly request the accommodation.

“Applying the correct legal standard, there is a fact question as to whether Penn engaged with Lewis in good faith,” Smith said. “Even if Penn did act in good faith, it is for the jury to decide whether permanently exempting Lewis from both shaving and the certification requirement would have been a reasonable accommodation.”

The panel also said the district court should further consider whether the university has any business reason for requiring employees to provide a medical certificate every 60 days, since the ADA prohibits medical examinations and inquiries unless they stem from a business-related purpose.

As part of the ruling, the court also allowed Lewis to reinstate claims for retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act, which he had withdrawn after the district court dismissed the constructive discharge claim.

Brooks was joined by Judges Michael Chagares and Joseph Greenaway.

The University of Pennsylvania was represented by Leslie Greenspan of the Tucker Law Group. Greenspan did not return a message seeking comment.