11 ms·

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

by sago 11y ago

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.

fredkbloggs 11y ago
> 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.
- pyre 11y ago
  I think that @sago was attempting to separate "can't handle stress" from "making threats of violence" in the parent comment.
- jestar_jokin 11y ago
  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.
  - x3n0ph3n3 11y ago
    I don't think the slope is so slippery given the facts of this case. We're talking about credible death threats here.
- sago 11y ago
  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.
michaelt 11y ago
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.
- sago 11y ago
  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?

by sago 11y ago

fredkbloggs 11y ago

> 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.

pyre 11y ago
I think that @sago was attempting to separate "can't handle stress" from "making threats of violence" in the parent comment.
jestar_jokin 11y ago
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.
- x3n0ph3n3 11y ago
  I don't think the slope is so slippery given the facts of this case. We're talking about credible death threats here.
sago 11y ago
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.

michaelt 11y ago

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.

sago 11y ago
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?