Case helps illustrate ADA’s ‘direct threat’ meaning
As a bucket foreperson, Larry helped maintain and fix electrical facilities in the field. The job required Larry to climb up poles, work with live (potentially deadly) powerlines, and operate a bucket truck, often in extreme weather conditions and at unusual — sometimes long — hours. The company relied on two teams to perform these tasks. The bucket foreperson supervised the other linemen and always had to stay alert. The company also required bucket truck operators to possess a commercial driver’s license.
After working for the company for almost 30 years, Larry began having seizures. The seizures could last as short as a few seconds or as long as 90 seconds. During a seizure, Larry would be mentally altered and not know what was happening around him. There were no warning signs about when a seizure might occur; they were unpredictable.
In March 2020, an exhausted Larry had been working all night repairing lines with another employee. While driving the truck, Larry suffered a seizure and swerved a bit out of his lane. The other employee in the truck noticed the seizure and reported the incident to their supervisor. The supervisor told Larry to see a doctor. Larry’s doctor cleared him to return to work.
While repairing an elevated power line that August, one of Larry’s coworkers went up in the bucket. Larry and the other employees remained on the ground. From the elevated bucket, the coworker spotted Larry lying face down on the ground and feared that he had died. This coworker told the others to place a “mayday call.” An ambulance took Larry to the emergency room, where doctors diagnosed him with heat exhaustion. They also released him to return to work the same day.
HR’s concerns
Connie, the company’s HR VP put Larry on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Given the two incidents within months of each other, Connie worried that Larry’s seizures could cause a catastrophic event and get someone killed. Connie asked a private physician who served as the company’s medical review officer, to evaluate Larry. Larry’s doctor also completed the paperwork that took him out of work for the short term.
The doctors released Larry to work, but with limited hours. He also couldn’t operate a vehicle or powered equipment for at least five months. Later, the doctors removed the driving restriction but didn’t remove the limited hours.
Connie decided that a bucket foreperson’s ability to work extended hours on short notice was essential to the job. So, she investigated whether the company could transfer Larry to a different role. Larry, however, didn’t qualify for any open positions. The company told Larry that they couldn’t accommodate his condition and that he could retire or be let go. He chose retirement, but sued, claiming that the company discriminated against him because of his condition and that he didn’t pose a direct threat.
Employer wins direct threat argument
Because of the hours and hazards of a bucket foreperson, along with the doctors’ input, the court found in favor of the employer and agreed that Larry qualified as a direct threat of harm to himself and others.
Smith v. Newport Utilities, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-5502, February 27, 2025.
ADA’s direct threat
The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects employees who are qualified individuals; if they can perform, with or without reasonable accommodation, the job’s essential functions.
Because employees who are considered a direct threat of harm to themselves or others aren’t “qualified individuals” under this definition, the ADA does not protect them.
The ADA defines a “direct threat” as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that can’t be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.” Employers must consider four factors when deciding whether a significant risk exists:
- The duration of the risk,
- The nature and severity of the potential harm,
- The likelihood that this harm will arise, and
- The imminence of the harm.
Employers also should engage in an individualized direct-threat assessment and base their conclusions on reasonable medical judgment, the best available objective evidence, or both.
Key to remember: Employers can take action against an employee who poses a direct threat, but they must be able to show the direct threat.