Court: Disabilities don't include endangering others
Published 04/15/05

Disability employment discrimination laws do not give a stressed worker a license to misbehave. The Federal First Circuit Court of Appeals reiterated this point in its March 11, 2003 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 from August 22, 1989 to December 13, 1996 when he had been involved in an altercation at Gillette which had left his supervisor and co-workers fearing for their safety.

Calef was fired from his job at Gillette following the incident after previous warnings.

Calef brought suit alleging, among other things, that Gillette violated the American With Disabilities Act by: terminating his employment; failing to reasonably accommodate; and harassing 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 ADA or 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 had been 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 do. Calef's basic position was that his December 6, 1996 behavior which resulted in his job termination, was caused by ADHD and that the reactions the Gillette employees had to him were unreasonable and motivated by biased against people with disabilities.

In his case he claimed to be disabled because of learning and speech impairments due to his ADHD.

The Court specifically found that by the evidence submitted, Calef could not prove that his life experiences showed a substantial limitation on his learning or speech. The evidence revealed that he was able to learn new jobs and that he could perform a variety of speaking tasks central to most peoples' lives outside the workplace as well as within, particularly when he compensated through Ritalin and counseling.

The Court noted that very few people find handling stress to be easy. Many people do not think well in stressful situations and find it hard to speak well. Mere inability to get along with others is not a substantial limitation on a major life function and therefore not necessarily a disability under the ADA.

The Court specifically also stated that even if Calef was disabled the ADA did not require a worker whose unacceptable behavior threatens the safety of others to be retained, even if the behavior stems from a mental disability since that worker is not qualified to do his job. A central function of Calef's job was to handle stressful situations, in this case requests for overtime work and routine disagreements.

As the Court has stated in the past the ADA does not sanction insubordination in the workplace.

J. Daniel Marr is a director and shareholder at Hamblett & Kerrigan, P.A. His legal practice includes counseling businesses and business persons on a variety of legal issues, including employment, and advocating on their behalf. You can reach Attorney Marr by e-mail at: dmarr@hamker.com

This information is general information and may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. The information provided should not be relied upon as an indication of the actual state of the law or of future developments. The information contained on the Hamblett & Kerrigan website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If the information referenced may be of legal importance to you, you should consult with an attorney to provide you with legal guidance and opinion as the the effect of the current law upon your situation.