Employment Update
Inappropriate Behavior not Grounds for Accommodation
The ADA does not give a stressed worker a license to misbehave. The 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals reiterated this point in its decision of Calef v. The Gillette Co. In this case, the court agreed with the Massachusetts federal trial court in dismissing Calef's claim.
Fred Calef was a production mechanic at Gillette when he was involved in an altercation that left his supervisor and co-workers fearing for their safety. Calef was fired from his job following the incident after previous warnings. He brought suit, alleging, among other things, Gillette violated the ADA by failing to reasonably accommodate him, then firing him.
The court agreed that the trial court made the correct decision by dismissing the disability discrimination case, since Calef failed to show that he was disabled under the act. The court also found that even if he was disabled, he was otherwise a qualified individual to do his essential job functions. Calef had a history at Gillette of losing control of his anger, yelling and threatening co-workers. After he was referred to the Employee Assistance Program, he began therapy and was diagnosed as having attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Calef acknowledged that his ADHD did not cause him to become angry, but there was evidence that individuals with ADHD deal with anger more impulsively. In highly stressful situations, individuals with ADHD may not focus as well as others. Calef's position was that the behavior, which resulted in his job termination, was caused by ADHD and that the reactions of Gillette employees were unreasonable and motivated by bias against people with disabilities. In his case, he claimed to be disabled because of learning and speech impairments due to his ADHD.
Many people do not think well in stressful situations and find it hard to speak well. The court noted that very few people find handling stress to be easy. The court specifically also stated that even if Calef was disabled, the act did not require a worker whose unacceptable behavior threatens the safety of others to be retained. The court found that to be true even if the behavior stems from a mental disability.
(Source: "Court: Disabilities Don't Include Endangering Others," J. Daniel Marr, Nashua Telegraph, April 15, 2005.)
