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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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

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

  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.

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?

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.

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_.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

> Making clear and specific threats against someone in front of others is the worst possible choice;

Actually, murder is the worst possible choice.

> 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.

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.

I am mentally ill. I am non-violent. When my coworkers discovered I was mentally ill, I was picked on, bullied, and harassed. I don't take things out on others, instead I hold anger in and it made me sick. It made me so sick that I ended up on disability. I was only having depression when I was picked on and I developed schizoaffective disorder from the stress I was under.

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.

I'm sorry that you had to go through that. I've worked with several people with mental health disorders and it is always a very difficult situation. It has taken me many years to learn how react appropriately, so I also would welcome some kind of education. As mental health disorders affect a significant portion of the population, perhaps it should be done as part of school. But even then, a lack on understanding mixed with fear can still cause people to act/react badly.

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.

Well getting off of disability and finding an employer that can work with your mental illness and accommodate you is like the hardest thing in the world. Many managers see mental illness as a personal weakness instead of an illness that needs treatment and support.

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.

Maybe we should just accept that the point when you start planning to go on a killing spree is the point where society ceases to have any obligation for your well-being.

I suspect that's what most societies do. I don't think it will cut down on the killing sprees, though. Nor on general suffering.

There are likely to be better answers, but I have to admit that this problem is hard.

Most of the problems involving people are hard to solve. The human brain isn't always logical and can become emotional and irrational in some situations.

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.

I'll agree with that. I've been meaning to cook up an essay proposing that our culture develop some form of mental health check-up that is analogous to yearly physicals.

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.