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

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.