Anger disorder is not protected ADA disability

Workforce, June, 2003 by D. Diane Hatch

Fred Calef worked at the Gillette Company from 1989 until December 13, 1996. In the early 1990s, Calef was involved in several incidents at work when he threatened coworkers or exchanged angry insults, for which he received oral and written warnings. Following a final written warning in 1995 for one of these incidents, Calef was referred to an employee assistance program, started counseling with a therapist, was diagnosed as having Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and began taking Ritalin in 1996.

Following a leave of absence in 1996, Calef was terminated after a disagreement with a supervisor, who said that he actually feared for his life because Calef's actions were "irrational and increasingly erratic." During an investigation of the incident, another company official said he too feared a physical attack by Calef.

Rejecting Calef's Americans with Disabilities Act claim, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the mere diagnosis of ADHD was not enough to demonstrate a protected ADA disability, and that Calef was not a qualified employee under ADA in view of his many altercations with coworkers. "Put simply, the ADA does not require that an employee whose unacceptable behavior threatens the safety of others be retained, even if the behavior stems from a mental disability. Such an employee is not qualified?' Calef v. Gillette Co., 1st Cir., No. 02-1444 (3/11/03).

Impact: Employers should know that an employee 's behavior that threatens the safety of others renders the employee, regardless of disability, unqualified under the ADA.

D. Diane Hatch, Ph.D., is a human resources consultant in San Francisco. James E. Hall and Mark T. Kobata are attorneys with Barlow, Kobata & Dents. (Offices in Los Angeles and Chicago.)