Direct Threat

Health or Safety Defense

An employer may require that an individual not pose a "direct threat" to the health or safety of himself/herself or others. A health or safety risk can only be considered if it is "a significant risk of substantial harm." Employers cannot deny an employment opportunity merely because of a slightly increased risk. An assessment of "direct threat" must be strictly based on valid medical analyses and/or other objective evidence, and not on speculation. Like any qualification standard, this requirement must apply to all applicants and employees, not just to people with disabilities.

If an individual appears to pose a direct threat because of a disability, the employer must first try to eliminate or reduce the risk to an acceptable level with reasonable accommodation. If an effective accommodation cannot be found, the employer may refuse to hire an applicant or discharge an employee who poses a direct threat. (See Chapter IV.)

http://askjan.org/links/ADAtam1.html

Direct threat

The term “direct threat” means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.

42 USC § 12111 - Definitions

75 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r) (1996).  To determine whether an individual would pose a direct threat, the factors to be considered include:  (1) duration of the risk; (2) nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) imminence of the potential harm.  Id.

Once a person with a disability has started working, actual performance, and not the employee's disability, is the best indication of the employee's ability to do the job.

Basic rule: The ADA strictly limits the circumstances under which you may ask questions about disability or require medical examinations of employees. Such questions and exams are only permitted where you have a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that a particular employee will be unable to perform essential job functions or will pose a direct threat because of a medical condition.

Sometimes you may have observed the employee's job performance or you may have received reports from others who have seen the employee's behavior. These observations or reports may give you a reasonable belief that the employee's ability to perform essential job functions is impaired by a medical condition or that the employee poses a direct threat because of a medical condition.

Practice tip: If an employee with a disability is having trouble performing essential job functions, or doing so safely, do not immediately assume that the disability is the reason. Poor job performance is often unrelated to a medical condition and, when this is the case, it should be handled in accordance with your existing policies concerning performance (e.g., informal discussions with the employee, verbal or written warnings, or termination where necessary). On the other hand, if you have information that reasonably causes you to conclude that the problem is related to the employee's disability, then medical questions, and perhaps even a medical examination, may be appropriate.

Example: A normally reliable employee who is making frequent mistakes tells you that the medication she has started taking for her lupus makes her lethargic and unable to concentrate. Under these circumstances, you may ask her some questions relating to her medical condition, such as how long the medication can be expected to affect job performance.

Inquiries or exams always allowed: Certain types of inquiries or examinations are always permitted, even if they disclose some medical information. For example, you may:

  • Ask all employees to provide a doctor's note to support a request for leave.

Direct Threat: You also may reject a job applicant with a disability or terminate an employee with a disability for safety reasons if the person poses a direct threat (i.e., a significant risk of substantial harm to self or others). Employers have legitimate concerns about maintaining a safe workplace for all employees and members of the public and, in some instances, the nature of a particular person's disability may cause an unacceptable risk of harm.

Practice tip: You must be careful not to exclude a qualified person with a disability based on myths, unsubstantiated fears, or stereotypes about that person's ability to safely perform the job.

Examples of what to consider:

  • Assess the particular applicant's or employee's present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job based on objective evidence and reasonable medical judgment.
  • Consider the duration of the risk, the nature and severity of the potential harm, the likelihood that the potential harm will occur, and the imminence of the potential harm.

Examples of what to be careful about:

  • The determination cannot be based on generalizations about the condition.
    Example: You cannot automatically prohibit someone with epilepsy from working around machinery. Some forms of epilepsy are more severe than others or are not well-controlled. On the other hand, some people with epilepsy know when a seizure will occur in time to move away from potentially hazardous situations. Sometimes seizures occur only at night, making the possibility of a seizure on the job remote.
  • The determination cannot be based on unfounded fears about the condition.
    Example: A restaurant could not deny someone with HIV infection a job handling food based on customers' fears that the condition could be transmitted, since there is no real risk of transmitting HIV through food handling.
  • Ask about an employee's medical condition and conduct medical examinations that are required by another federal law.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/adahandbook.html

More DIRECT THREAT

Under the ADA, an employer may lawfully exclude an individual from employment for safety reasons only if the employer can show that employment of the individual would pose a "direct threat."73 Employers must apply the "direct threat" standard uniformly and may not use safety concerns to justify exclusion of persons with disabilities when persons without disabilities would not be excluded in similar circumstances.74

The EEOC's ADA regulations explain that "direct threat" means "a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation."75 A "significant" risk is a high, and not just a slightly increased, risk.76 The determination that an individual poses a "direct threat" must be based on an individualized assessment of the individual's present ability to safely perform the functions of the job, considering a reasonable medical judgment relying on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence.77 With respect to the employment of individuals with psychiatric disabilities, the employer must identify the specific behavior that would pose a direct threat.78 An individual does not pose a "direct threat" simply by virtue of having a history of psychiatric disability or being treated for a psychiatric disability.79

33.  Does an individual pose a direct threat in operating machinery solely because s/he takes medication that may as a side effect diminish concentration and/or coordination for some people?

No.  An individual does not pose a direct threat solely because s/he takes a medication that may diminish coordination or concentration for some people as a side effect.  Whether such an individual poses a direct threat must be determined on a case-by-case basis, based on a reasonable medical judgment relying on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.  Therefore, an employer must determine the nature and severity of this individual's side effects, how those side effects influence his/her ability to safely operate the machinery, and whether s/he has had safety problems in the past when operating the same or similar machinery while taking the medication.  If a significant risk of substantial harm exists, then an employer must determine if there is a reasonable accommodation that will reduce or eliminate the risk.

            Example:  An individual receives an offer for a job in which she will operate an electric saw, conditioned on a post-offer medical examination.  In response to questions at this medical examination, the individual discloses her psychiatric disability and states that she takes a medication to control it.  This medication is known to sometimes affect coordination and concentration.  The company doctor determines that the individual experiences negligible side effects from the medication because she takes a relatively low dosage.  She also had an excellent safety record at a previous job, where she operated similar machinery while
taking the same medication.  This individual does not pose a direct threat.

34.  When can an employer refuse to hire someone based on his/her history of violence or threats of violence?

An employer may refuse to hire someone based on his/her history of violence or threats of violence if it can show that the individual poses a direct threat.  A determination of "direct threat" must be based on an individualized assessment of the individual's present ability to safely perform the functions of the job, considering the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence.  To find that an individual with a psychiatric disability poses a direct threat, the employer must identify the specific behavior on the part of the individual that would pose the direct threat.  This includes an assessment of the
likelihood and imminence of future violence.

            Example: An individual applies for a position with Employer X. When Employer X checks his employment background, she learns that he was terminated two weeks ago by Employer Y, after he told a coworker that he would get a gun and "get his supervisor if he tries anything again." Employer X also learns that these statements followed three months of escalating incidents in which this individual had had several altercations in the workplace, including one in which he had to be restrained from fighting with a coworker.  He then revealed his disability to Employer Y. After being given time off for medical treatment, he continued to have trouble controlling his temper and was seen punching the wall outside his supervisor's office.  Finally, he made the threat against the supervisor and was terminated.  Employer X learns that, since then, he has not received any further medical treatment.  Employer X does not hire him, stating that this history indicates that he poses a direct threat.

This individual poses a direct threat as a result of his disability because his recent overt acts and statements (including an attempted fight with a coworker, punching the wall, and making a threatening statement about the supervisor) support the conclusion that he poses a "significant risk of substantial harm."  Furthermore, his prior treatment had no effect on his behavior, he had received no subsequent treatment, and only two weeks had elapsed since his termination, all supporting a finding of direct threat.

35.  Does an individual who has attempted suicide pose a direct threat when s/he seeks to return to work?

No, in most circumstances.  As with other questions of direct threat, an employer must base its determination on an individualized assessment of the person's ability to safely perform job functions when s/he returns to work.  Attempting suicide does not mean that an individual poses an imminent risk of harm to him/herself when s/he returns to work.  In analyzing direct threat (including the likelihood and imminence of any potential harm), the employer must seek reasonable medical judgments
relying on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available factual evidence concerning the employee.

            Example:  An employee with a known psychiatric disability was hospitalized for two suicide attempts, which occurred within several weeks of each other.  When the employee asked to return to work, the employer allowed him to return pending an evaluation of medical reports to determine his ability to safely perform his job.  The individual's therapist and psychiatrist both submitted documentation stating that he could safely perform all of his job functions.  Moreover, the employee performed his job safely after his return, without reasonable accommodation.  The employer, however, terminated the individual's employment after evaluating the doctor's and therapist's reports, without citing any contradictory medical or factual evidence concerning the employee's recovery.  Without more evidence, this employer cannot support its determination that this individual poses a direct threat.80

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/psych.html