
Death Threats Against Co-Workers Defeat Employee Disability Discrimination Claim - lutesfuentes
https://casetext.com/posts/death-threats-against-co-workers-defeat-employee-disability-discrimination-claim-federal-court-rules
======
sago
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.

~~~
fredkbloggs
> 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.

~~~
jestar_jokin
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.

~~~
x3n0ph3n3
I don't think the slope is so slippery given the facts of this case. We're
talking about credible death threats here.

------
mikecmpbll
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.

~~~
busterarm
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
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.

~~~
busterarm
They fired HR and hired all new HR when they laid off 30% of the company :)

------
daveloyall
Better title, from the text of the article: _Expressed Homicidal Ideation in
Workplace Bars ADA Discrimination Claim_.

------
tracker1
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.

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

------
zission
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
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.

------
crpatino
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_.

<sarcasm>

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

</sarcasm>

~~~
Johnny555
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.

~~~
fredkbloggs
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.

~~~
mikeash
Even putting the moral issues aside, the punishment for "do[ing] it" is going
to be _way_ worse than the punishment for talking about it. So I really have a
difficult time seeing why you say that making threats is the worst possible
choice.

~~~
fredkbloggs
That assumes you're going to just sit there and get caught. Which is
_certainly_ what's going to happen if you mouth off instead. Someone who goes
out with the intent to commit murder (i.e., malice aforethought or
premeditation or whatever language your jurisdiction relies upon) by
definition has plenty of planning time to minimize the risk of capture.

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.

~~~
mikeash
I would say that being imprisoned for life is about a million times worse than
being fired. Thus unless you can guarantee that your odds of capture are
literally a million to one, that's not the way to go. (And judging by recent
mass shootings, the chances of escape seem to be pretty near zero.)

