Death Threats Against Co-Workers Defeat Employee Disability Discrimination Claim
casetext.com
casetext.com
In this case claiming that the ability to 'handle' stress is a core part of the required employment competency, seems to beg the question: why is that not something worthy of support and accommodation? What standards for stress coping can be put forward in advance? Does the employer ever advertise with this as a requirement? Do the judgements of the medical professionals about appropriate accommodation not carry enough weight?
Whereas if it was ruled on in terms of the risk and safe work environment, seems a slam dunk case.
The article suggested other cases had drawn that line, I wonder why this one went the more tendentious route.
Accommodation how? As the court pointed out, there was no reason to think assignment to a different supervisor would address the problem. The court's reasoning here seems very sound: there is no accommodation that the employer could make that would both be reasonable (e.g., isolating him in a separate facility with no other workers to avoid putting anyone else at risk is not reasonable) and sufficient to enable him to do his job. Therefore, he is not a qualified person under the law, and is not entitled to relief.
Don't make this harder than it is. If you can't show up and do your job without harming others or making credible threats to do so, you're not qualified. There is no reasonable way to accommodate that conduct.
In this particular case, the outcome was fine. In future cases, without threat of violence? Uncertain.
I wasn't making it harder than it is: I was suggesting the judgement had.
If you come in to work and make death threats to employees, you may be competent, but you shouldn't be protected and accommodated, safety suggests you should be out of there.
Couching it as somehow an issue of 'incompetence due to stress' seems to introduce too many dubious variables. Other people are stressed, other people are incompetent, they don't make death threats, so this judgement shouldn't apply to them. So it is simpler to make this about the pattern of threats, not stress-related incompetence.
Though the two are connected in this case, the legal reasoning is quite capable of keeping them apart, for the sake of precedent, if nothing else. article.
What standards for stress coping can be put forward in
advance? Does the employer ever advertise with this as
a requirement?
Nobody needs to tell me not to piss on my boss's desk, or deal meth from the office, or attend meetings wearing a nazi uniform.
a) chronic stress, and b) violent threats
which are combined in this case. By ruling based on a), rather than b) (which is how it sounded to me from the write up, but I've no read the detailed judgement), it seems to be suggesting that chronic stress be the factor that i) prevents competent work, and ii) cannot be accommodated. That seems like a wider judgement than I'd be happy with. There are plenty of people with chronic stress, as long as they aren't threatening people with death, I don't see why a company can't provide some support and accommodation to help them be productive. The question about advertising is rhetorical: being chronically stressed is not on par with pissing on the bosses desk or dealing meth, or dressing as a nazi. It is on par, I'd say, with chronic back pain, loss of eyesight, hormonal imbalance.
By what standard of determining stress does one judge that an employee is past helping in a case of chronic stress? If the answer is 'you know when they start threatening people with death', then it would seem to me like the death threats, not the stress is the key culprit.
See what I'm saying?
Some situations are just unfortunate, but that doesn't mean they're unjust.
Over nothing.
He still works there. I don't. Jerknuts would flip out to HR over every minor grievance but was completely immovable from a team where everyone (including his boss) hated him. HR did nothing about his threats (which were to more than just me). Did nothing about his consistent efforts to undermine his boss and the work of the team. Did nothing about him deliberately misleading and trolling his coworkers and _our customers_.
In either case, I'm with the company/state on this... there's no accommodation that could have been applied that would have been shown to improved the situation and reduced risk.
Let's not equate mental illness with a desire to do evil. He could have just as easily forgiven his supervisors.
Consider this: imagine a disease whose symptoms were temporary intermittent paralysis. Individuals with this disease occasionally can't move their arms or legs. To outsiders, it may seem like they are faking it. How could you know if the paralysis was real or not? After all, you saw the individual walking just fine moments earlier, and they are walking fine now.
My point is, to say "He could have just as easily forgiven his supervisors" is like saying "He could have just as easily walked". If the condition is legitimate, he really couldn't have forgiven his supervisors, because there is a side of his mind he can't control.
Never talk about any personal/health/financial/existential problem at work, or with people that are anyhow connected with your co-workers/manager... ever.
<sarcasm>
But please *do* seek help elsewhere on your own time/dime. It wouldnt' do if you end up *actually* shooting your supervisor.
That was my takeaway, but then I thought everyone already knew that.
Actually, murder is the worst possible choice.
I'm not interested in the moral issues. The assumption is that you've been wronged and are angry enough that you've decided to do something about it (the fact that the man in this case supposedly has a mental disability is not relevant). I mentioned numerous other ways of dealing with this kind of problem that do not involve violence; each has its merits. If, however, you've decided that violence is the answer, the way to move forward with that plan is to implement it, not discuss it with others. That should be obvious, and is the point I was making.
There's no excuse for slipshod planning or halfhearted execution. Whether something is morally or ethically right does not alter the basic imperative that it be done well, or not done at all.
Yea, I don't know how one would structure a legal principle so as to prohibit firing someone under those conditions but still allow organization a way of removing threatening members.
Still, the guy would have been better of if he had kept his mouth shut and figured out a way to solve his problem - preferably one that did not involve shooting people. That's all I am saying.
I don't know what went on in that workplace, but if it was like my workplace and they discovered he was mentally ill and picked on him, he made the wrong choice to make death threats.
Not only should there be a mental health screening but a teaching of empathy and compassion for mentally ill people so they are not picked on, bullied, or harassed.
I don't know how many public shootings we have to go through where they could have been prevented with mental health screenings and teaching people not to pick on the mentally ill.
In my case I am high functioning, have empathy and compassion for others. Not everyone does.
One thing that worries me is that mental health issues can truly incapacitate people. For the person in the article, presumably returning to any kind of work will be extremely difficult. Who will take a chance to hire that person? What is he to do? If the state looks after such a person, how many healthy people will feel frustrated that somebody issues death threats and is "rewarded" by receiving care from the state.
It is a highly difficult situation. As I have some good friends who have developed mental disorders, I feel truly grateful that I have do not have to cope with that myself (yet...). I hope you are able to successfully struggle through these difficult issues going forward.
That is what happened at my workplace my mental illness was seen as a weakness and they tried to weed me out by picking on, bullying, and harassing me until I left the company. I had a panic attack one day and they discovered I was mentally ill. I couldn't quit because it was hard to find work at the time, and I have a wife and son and house payments.
Someone who threatens violence most likely won't end up on disability but will do things to end up in jail and await a trial. Threatening violence is threaten with intent to terrorize and a class C felony in some areas. If he does it again and the police are called, he'd face about a year in jail and mental hospitals as they try to figure out if he is fit to stand trial. If found guilty he'd spend 3 to 10 years in jail and have one strike against him in the felony section.
There are likely to be better answers, but I have to admit that this problem is hard.
I live in Ferguson Missouri, we have riots and looting here. It is much more than the death of Mike Brown, it is government corruption, it is decades old racism, it is racial profiling by the police, it is politicians cutting the budget of education and the police to pay themselves more money, it is police officers using deadly force when if they had a taser it would have been different, it is lack of good paying jobs, it is a ruin down houses and condos and apartments, you got non-violent protesters and then you got some violent ones with them that throw rocks and bottles at police officers and even some shooting guns. I can't think of a solution to all of that. But it is a bigger problem than workplace shooters.
In my case the society is sick, and it is only sick because of injustices and perceived wrongdoing by the police. You hear protesters saying they want to kill the police officers, because they have killed innocent black lives.
Again I don't know of a solution to that, I'm trained to solve problems involving computers, math, science, and using logic and reason.
Racism does not pass intelligence tests, it is not logical or rational. It is based on hate, much the same as workplace shooters are based on hate and don't follow logic and reason.
When a human being isn't being logical or rational and goes with emotions like hate and fear, you'd almost have to get into abnormal psychology to find a solution.
Yes there might exist better answers.
As a mentally ill person, society generally looks down on me and does not support me anyway. They see my mental illness as a weakness and either want me gone from the workplace or in a mental hospital, nursing home, or dead.
It's not acceptable to make threats in the workplace, and as a manager I will not tolerate it. If you have a mental illness, that fine, but you need to be able to control your behavior.