Death Threats Against Co-Workers Defeat Employee Disability Discrimination Claim

https://casetext.com/posts/death-threats-against-co-workers-defeat-employee-disability-discrimination-claim-federal-court-rules

by lutesfuentes • 11 years ago

55 34 11 years ago

casetext.com

daveloyall• 11 years ago

Better title, from the text of the article: Expressed Homicidal Ideation in Workplace Bars ADA Discrimination Claim.

crpatino2• 11 years ago

And the moral of the story is:

Never talk about any personal/health/financial/existential problem at work, or with people that are anyhow connected with your co-workers/manager... ever.

  But please *do* seek help elsewhere on your own time/dime. It wouldnt' do if you end up *actually* shooting your supervisor.

</sarcasm>

Johnny555• 11 years ago

I thought the moral of the story was never threaten to kill your supervisor, or reveal that you've even plotted out the best time to carry out your attack to ensure that the most supervisory "targets" are on site.

fredkbloggs3• 11 years ago

Right. If you're gonna do it, then shut up and do it. Otherwise, find another way to solve the problem: find a new job, put in for a transfer, file a complaint with HR, see a physician, or any of a number of other possibilities. Making clear and specific threats against someone in front of others is the worst possible choice; you're going to find yourself in serious trouble (getting fired seems like the minimum), and you're not going to solve anything.

That was my takeaway, but then I thought everyone already knew that.

afarrell3• 11 years ago

Mayo told three different co-workers that he wanted to kill the supervisor.

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.

crpatino2• 11 years ago

I am not saying the employer was in the wrong for firing him after the fact. Or that he should be entitled to a job after the fact.

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.

Spooky23• 11 years ago

I've been on the other side of this, where an employee decided to make the lives of everyone around miserable due to whatever problem the person had. In my case, the person made a variety of threats against a variety of people. In one case, the person made wild accusations against me that resulted in frivolous criminal inquiry.

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.

sago3• 11 years ago

It seems a little question-begging that this was ruled on in terms of job competency. I think it clearer to make the point made in the article: the rights of a disabled worker to receive reasonable accommodation does not trump the right of other employees to a safe work environment.

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.

fredkbloggs3• 11 years ago

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?

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.

pyre• 11 years ago

I think that @sago was attempting to separate "can't handle stress" from "making threats of violence" in the parent comment.

jestar_jokin• 11 years ago

I think the point is that by this ruling, it might set a precedent where any inability to cope with your job due to stress can be seen as reasonable grounds for termination. I interpreted the bit you quoted as asking, "will there be support and accommodation for stress (of any level), or will exhibiting symptoms of stress be immediate grounds for termination?"

In this particular case, the outcome was fine. In future cases, without threat of violence? Uncertain.

sago3• 11 years ago

I think you got the wrong end of the stick on my point, sorry if I confused the issue.

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.

michaelt• 11 years ago

  What standards for stress coping can be put forward in
  advance? Does the employer ever advertise with this as
  a requirement?

There are loads of things that aren't explicitly listed in job adverts, because no reasonable person needs to be told them.

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.

sago3• 11 years ago

Right, I was trying to separate two things:

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?

mikecmpbll• 11 years ago

This would be more of a story if the ruling went the other way. Someone threatens to kill people at work and loses his job, no shit. Imagine working with that person after you've had quite a specific and calculated death threat from that individual, completely impossible.

Some situations are just unfortunate, but that doesn't mean they're unjust.

busterarm2• 11 years ago

When I worked remotely, I had a coworker that was hard to deal with (with everyone) and openly threatened in logged work chat to come to my house and shoot me in the face.

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_.

tokenadult• 11 years ago

HR is a net loss to that company, it appears. Fire HR and just hire a consulting firm to handle the company's HR tasks.

kelukelugames• 11 years ago

Glad no one was physically harmed. I hope he gets the help he needs.

tracker1• 11 years ago

On the flip side, this should provide sufficient background for early SSI benefits... not that they're great at all.

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.

zission• 11 years ago

Since when did symptoms of depression include malice aforethought?

Let's not equate mental illness with a desire to do evil. He could have just as easily forgiven his supervisors.

dkokelley• 11 years ago

That's the rub with mental illness. How can you really know? Mental illness is used as a defence in murder cases because it's tough to know which thoughts are lucid and sounds and which thoughts are the result of legitimate mental disorders.

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.

Death Threats Against Co-Workers Defeat Employee Disability Discrimination Claim

Related Stories