Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
Employee Who Makes Serious Threats of Violence Toward Coworkers Is Not “Qualified” under the ADA: Ninth Circuit
Practical Law Legal Update 6-617-8329 (Approx. 6 pages)
Employee Who Makes Serious Threats of Violence Toward Coworkers Is Not “Qualified” under the ADA: Ninth Circuit
by Practical Law Labor & Employment
| Published on 04 Aug 2015 • USA (National/Federal) |
In Mayo v. PCC Structurals, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held for the first time that an employee who makes serious and credible threats of violence against coworkers is not a qualified individual with a disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) or Oregon's disability discrimination law.
On July 28, 2015, in Mayo v. PCC Structurals, Inc., a case of first impression in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court held that an employee who made serious and credible threats of violence against coworkers is not a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA or Oregon's disability discrimination law. The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer because the employee failed to make a prima case of disability discrimination. The Ninth Circuit joined the Sixth Circuit and the EEOC in this conclusion. (No. 13-cv-35643, (9th Cir. July 28, 2015).)
Background
Timothy Mayo worked as a welder for PCC Structurals. In 2011, after Mayo and other employees complained about a supervisor bullying them, Mayo made threatening comments about the supervisor and another manager to at least three coworkers, telling them he felt like bringing a shotgun to work and blowing off the supervisor's and manager's heads. Mayo's threats referenced a specific time of day that he planned to carry out the killings. Mayo's coworkers reported the threats to PCC's management and management questioned Mayo about his threats. Mayo responded that "he couldn't guarantee that he wouldn't" act on those threats.
PCC immediately suspended Mayo and notified the police. The police ultimately took Mayo into custody and to a hospital because he posed a danger to himself and others. Mayo took leave under both the FMLA and the Oregon Family Leave Act.
Two months later, a treating psychologist cleared Mayo to return to work and recommended PCC assign Mayo a new supervisor. On May 20, 2011, PCC terminated Mayo's employment.
In August 2011, Mayo sued PCC and the district court granted PCC's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Mayo was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA or Oregon's disability discrimination law because of his violent threats. Mayo appealed.
Outcome
The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for PCC, holding that an employee who makes serious and credible threats of violence against coworkers is not a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA or Oregon's disability discrimination law.
The Ninth Circuit noted that:
- Oregon's disability discrimination law involves the same McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework as the ADA and requires an employee to initially make a prima facie case of disability discrimination by showing that he:
- is a disabled person under the statute;
- is a qualified individual with a disability; and
- suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability.
- Being qualified for a job involves being able to appropriately handle stress and interact harmoniously with coworkers (Williams v. Motorola, Inc., 303 F.3d 1284, 1290 (11th Cir. 2002)).
- Adverse reactions to stress do not necessarily render an employee unqualified, but an employee is not qualified if stress leads an employee with major depressive disorder to threaten to harm coworkers (Newland v. Dalton, 81 F.3d 904, 906 (9th Cir. 1996)).
- A rule conferring qualified status on individuals who threaten other employees would place employers in the impossible position of choosing between liability for disability discrimination or allowing a potentially violent employee to remain in the workplace (Weaving v. City of Hillsboro, 763 F.3d 1106, 1114 (9th Cir. 2014); Palmer v. Circuit Court, 117 F.3d 351, 352 (7th Cir. 1997); Calef v. Gillette Co., 322 F.3d 75, 87 (1st Cir. 2003)).
- The Sixth Circuit and the EEOC have also concluded that an employee's violent threats mean that the employee is not a qualified individual for purposes of making a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA (Sullivan v. River Valley Sch. Dist., 197 F.3d 804, 809, 813 (6th Cir. 1999); EEOC Enforcement Guidance on the Americans with Disabilities Act and Psychiatric Disabilities, , at *16 (Mar. 25, 1997); Ferrell v. West, EEOC Petition No. 03960032, , at *9 (Apr. 9, 1997)).
The Ninth Circuit found that:
- Mayo made multiple threats in chilling detail. Mayo's threats:
- represented a credible and detailed plan to kill his supervisors; and
- demonstrated his inability to handle stress and interact with others.
- Mayo's termination by PCC was permissible not because his threats showed that he posed a risk of future violence but because his threats showed he was unable to handle an essential function of his job by appropriately handling stress and interacting with others.
- Changing Mayo's supervisor would not alter the fact that he was unable to handle stress.
Practical Implications
The Ninth Circuit's decision in Mayo concludes that employees who make serious and credible threats of violence toward their coworkers are not "qualified individuals" under the ADA or Oregon disability discrimination law. Employers are not required to accommodate those employees.
In addition, employers should consider that a logical extension of Mayo could include serious and credible threats by employees against third parties such as customers, clients, vendors and contractors.
However, Mayo does not permit adverse employment actions in response to every threat. Employers should take each workplace threat seriously and respond according to an established procedure, including careful documentation of each incident.