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) (

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?