It is rare that the most employee-friendly of all federal appellate courts cites "common sense" in support of one of its decisions. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently did just that, however, dismissing a disability discrimination claim filed by an employee who was fired for making death threats against company managers. In Mayo v. PCC Structurals, Inc., the Court ruled that the worker was not a "qualified individual with a disability," and therefore could not sustain an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit.
Chilling And Disturbing Death Threats
Timothy James Mayo worked as a welder. He had been diagnosed
with major depressive disorder, but was able to work at
Portland-based PCC Structurals for years without incident. Things
took a turn for the worse, however, when Mayo and some coworkers
felt a supervisor was bullying them and met with the human
resources director to discuss the behavior.
After the meeting, Mayo told one coworker that he felt like coming
to work with a shotgun and "blowing off" the heads of the
supervisor and another manager. He told a second coworker that he
planned to show up on the day shift to "take out"
management. He told a third that he wanted to bring a gun to the
company and "start shooting people" and that he could
shoot supervisors during their daily plant walk-through at 1:30
p.m.
Naturally concerned, the coworkers reported the threats to
management. A human resources manager called Mayo and asked if he
planned to carry out his threats. He said he "couldn't
guarantee" that he wouldn't do that, and the HR manager
immediately suspended him from work.
Mayo went on a medical leave which included six days in custody at
a hospital. At the end of his leave, his psychologist cleared him
to return to work but the employer terminated his employment. Mayo
sued under Oregon's counterpart to the ADA, claiming that his
threats were caused by his disability and that his termination
amounted to disability discrimination.
"My Disability Made Me Do It!"
Strange as it sounds, Mayo's argument was in line with
several prior decisions of the 9th and 10th Circuits which had held
that employers that terminated an employee for misconduct caused by
a disability committed a form of disability discrimination. The
first such case involved a medical transcriptionist with
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder who was fired for poor attendance.
The second involved an epileptic truck driver who passed out at the
wheel of a county truck after he felt that a seizure might be
imminent. The third involved an employee with Bipolar Disorder who
threw a temper tantrum after receiving a negative performance
review.
In each of these cases, the 9th Circuit found that the employers
committed ADA violations. The court concluded that the employees
were discriminated against on account of their disability because
they were terminated for misconduct purportedly caused by their
disabilities.
The court did create a narrow exception for employers who proved
that an employee posed an imminent danger of harm to self or
others, but that case involved an employee who tried to shoot
patrons of a bar with an assault rifle. Not only was the standard a
high one, but the burden of proof was on the employer.
Handling Stress Is An Essential Function Of Almost Every Job
Luckily for employers, common sense prevailed in the Mayo case
and the 9th Circuit reached a different conclusion. The court noted
that "an essential function of almost every job is the ability
to appropriately handle stress and interact with others."
Therefore, reasoned the court, even if Mayo was disabled, he could
not meet his burden of showing that he was qualified for his job at
the time he was fired. Citing common sense, the court maintained
that Mayo became disqualified when he threatened to kill his
coworkers regardless of whether the threats stemmed from his mental
disorder.
A contrary rule, the court recognized, would have placed employers
in an impossible position. The court disagreed that employers
"must simply cross their fingers and hope that violent threats
ring hollow. All too often Americans suffer the tragic consequences
of disgruntled employees targeting and killing their
coworkers." The court continued: "While the ADA and
Oregon disability law protect important individual rights, they do
not require employers to play dice with the lives of their
workforce."
Are Death Threats The Only Disqualification?
The Mayo case is a refreshing departure from the 9th
Circuit's usual approach of finding miscreant but ill employees
to be victims of disability discrimination after receiving employer
discipline. Yet it is difficult to imagine that even the 9th
Circuit could have reached a different result.
The court emphasized that its holding should be read only to
address the "extreme facts" in the case of an employee
making serious and credible threats of violence. It specifically
stated that off-handed expressions of frustration or inappropriate
jokes will not necessarily render an employee not qualified. It
also stated that employees who are simply rude, gruff, or
unpleasant do not automatically fall into the same category as
Mayo.
On the other hand, the court's finding that the ability to
handle stress and interact with others is an essential function of
almost all jobs is significant. It may be that employers can apply
this principle to situations involving some form of serious
misconduct not involving death threats. For example, a good
argument can be made that ADA victories may be had for employers in
cases where an employee entrusted with finances steals company
funds, or if an employee harms someone he is charged with
protecting.
Bottom Line: Put It In The Job Description
We recommend that you amend your job descriptions to include the
ability to handle job stress and interact effectively with others
in the workplace as essential functions of the job. This could
provide a helpful defense should an ADA lawsuit result from worker
misconduct. While the Mayo decision is restricted to employers who
operate in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction (which covers most
Western states, including California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona,
and Nevada), the ruling is consistent with cases from other
jurisdictions, so employers across the country should feel
comfortable following this guidance.
You should also include other intangible requirements in your job
descriptions, particularly where certain types of traits or
behavior (such as honesty or maintaining one's composure in
public) are important aspects of the job. Overall, you should
review your current job descriptions to ensure your bases are
covered.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.