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