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

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.