In Timothy James Mayo v. PCC Structurals, Inc., 9th Cir., Case No. 13-35643, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an employee, who was terminated after making credible death threats against his supervisor and co-workers, was not entitled to pursue a wrongful termination claim under the Americans With Disability Act.
While the decision of the Ninth Circuit seems obvious and logical, the case raises significant issues of just how far an employer has to go to accommodate a disabled employee. Under the ADA, an employer must make reasonable accommodations for disabled employees who are otherwise qualified to do a particular job. If an employee shows he or she is (1) a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) a qualified individual with a disability; and (3) was terminated or suffered an adverse employment action (i.e. demoted) because of the disability, the employee will prevail on an ADA claim of unlawful discharge and will be entitled to back pay, front pay, attorney’s fees, and in certain cases, damages for mental anguish, and inconvenience. In rare cases, punitive damages will be awarded if an employer acts with malice or reckless indifference.
However, even before reaching the question of whether an employer must make reasonable accommodations for the employee, the employer needs to determine whether the disabled employee is “qualified” for employment.
According to the ADA, a “qualified individual with a disability” is a “person who meets legitimate skill, experience, education, or other requirements of an employment position that he or she holds or seeks, and who can perform the ‘essential functions‘ of the position with or without reasonable accommodation.” While there is no accepted definition of “essential function” the Mayo court concluded that “ability to appropriately handle stress and interact with others” is an essential function of “almost every job.” Thus, an employee whose mental state creates a hostile workplace environment, or whose behavior threatens the safety of other employees, cannot perform the essential functions of his or her job and can be terminated without violating the ADA guidelines.
The gray area is where the employee’s behavior is less extreme than that of the Mayo plaintiff. The courts have not created a bright line rule: While court rulings are uniform in holding that a violent employee is not “qualified,” and is not entitled to ADA protection, the courts have been less uniform when an employee’s conduct is less extreme. Employees who are “simply rude, gruff or unpleasant” and employees with “anti-social” behavior or “psychiatric disabilities” can still be found to be “qualified” and will be entitled to reasonable accommodations.
For an employer, facing a difficult employee with mental issues, presents a myriad of issues. While the employer may usually terminate a potentially violent employee without fear of liability, it is not clear the employer may terminate an employee whose conduct is extreme, but not violent. Each case must be evaluated individually with a balancing act made between the propensity for harm versus the protections afforded by the ADA.
This document is intended to provide you with information about employment and labor law related developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.