Topical ADA Archive

Direct Threat

• Burroughs v. City of Springfield, (CA 8), 8 AD Cases 1677, 12/28/1998
  
  Summary: City properly made "direct threat'' risk assessment before removing police officer from active duty following two diabetic episodes. City acted only after he suffered two hypoglycemic episodes during which he failed to remain alert and functional while on duty. City based decision on recent medical evaluation by diabetes specialist, who concluded that officer "could conceivably'' be danger to himself or others and should not carry weapon until he was able to function without significant diabetic episodes. Doctor's opinion is not speculative given that officer had recently suffered two significant episodes while on duty, proving that he was not consistently controlling his disease.

• EEOC v. Prevo's Family Market (CA 6), 8 AD Cases 401, 2/4/1998
  
  Summary: Medical examination to determine whether produce clerk who claimed he was positive for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) posed direct threat was not unwarranted, despite his contention that he posed low risk of transmitting HIV to co-workers or customers, where existence of exposure and transmission opportunities are instrumental in determining whether medical examination is necessary, and it is undisputed that his condition presented potential transmission opportunities; he testified that he regularly incurred scrapes, cuts, and puncture wounds in course of employment and that he was sure at times that he did not properly clean his knives, and there is testimony on sharing of cutting utensils, some which were not properly cleaned.

• Estate of Mauro v. Borgess Med. Ctr., (CA 6), 7 AD Cases 1571, 2/25/1998
  
  Summary: Continued employment as surgical technician of employee who had human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was properly found to pose direct threat to health and safety of others, where his job required him occasionally to place his hands into patient's body cavity in presence of sharp instrumentation to provide room and visibility for surgeon, he had in past sustained needle stick or minor laceration, and wound causing HIV-infected surgical technician to bleed while in body cavity could have catastrophic results and near certainty of death.

• Hamlin v. Charter Township of Flint, (CA 6), 8 AD Cases 1688, 1/8/1999
  
  Summary: Federal district court did not err in submitting to jury issue of whether assistant fire chief posed direct threat to safety because of his physical inability to engage in active firefighting duties. Township presented evidence as to unpredictability of firefighter's work environment, the need for firefighting capabilities generally, and the possibility that the first responder to a scene might be in position to rescue someone trapped inside building. Township also had a rule providing that when two firefighters go into burning building for fire suppression or rescue, another pair of firefighters remains outside and ready to go in to assist if necessary. However, this evidence did not establish as a matter of law that there was a high probability of potential harm because of assistant chief's physical limitations or that the alleged risk was anything more than speculative or remote. Township simply relied on its own "subjective perceptions'' that all line officers do nothing other than directly fight fires.
  
  
• Kirkingburg v. Albertson's Inc., ( CA 9), 8 AD Cases 180, 5/11/98
  (first version 5/11/98)
  (second version 7/1/1998)
  
  Summary: Employer failed to establish that discharged truck driver with monocular vision who obtained Federal Highway Administration waiver exempting him from complying with Department of Transportation (DOT) visual acuity regulations posed direct threat to safety, where drivers who qualify for waiver program have established that they do not pose safety threat, waiver program was designed to bring DOT regulations into compliance with requirements of ADA and serves to protect disabled persons against unfounded discrimination, and denying monocular-visioned driver opportunity to work, in spite of his showing that he is capable of performing job safely, is precisely sort of discrimination that ADA sought to abolish.
  
  
• LaChance v. Duffy's Draft House, (CA 11), 8 AD Cases 652, 7/14/1998
  
  Summary: Former line cook with epilepsy and long history of complex partial seizures who admits that if he had continued working at restaurant he would have had seizures on job that would have posed risk of harm to himself and others because of appliances involved did not produce probative evidence that he does not pose risk to himself and others, despite contention that he has performed job safely at other places, where his prior employment consisted mainly of prep work, there is no evidence that those jobs involved using kind of appliances with which he was required to work at employer, and affidavit from his supervisor at another job indicating that he had worked around same appliances without incident for 13 months does not overcome his own admission and his doctor's statement that he posed risk of harm.
  
  
• Smith v. Cadbury Beverages, (DC WNY), 7 AD Cases 1667, 9/30/1996
  
  Summary: Discharged employee who claims he was terminated due to perceived mental disorder is unlikely to prevail on ADA claim, as his conduct--posting notice comparing employer to Ku Klux Klan and writing menacing letter to employer's president--supports view that he poses direct threat to safety of others in workplace, and it is unlikely that employer would be obliged to accommodate employee who makes libelous and threatening statements about it.