Publications: ADA No Shelter for Bad Workplace Behavior

To read the original Client Update in PDF format, please click the Related Files link.

Evidence of bad job performance is relevant and admissible on the issue of whether a disabled worker is a “qualified individual” capable of performing the essential functions of a job under the Americans With Disabilities Act. So held the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in its May 11, 2005 decision affirming judgment for the employer in Hammel v. Eau Galle Cheese Factory, Appeal No. 03-3578.

The defendant employer in Hammel fired a legally-blind cheese factory laborer only three weeks into his probationary period. Its business manager attributed the discharge to the plaintiff’s vision impairment, telling him it interfered with his work “to some extent,” and jeopardized his safety and that of his coworkers. Based on this evidence, the district court initially granted the employee partial summary judgment, finding that he was discharged because of his disability, but also that disputed issues remained for trial as to whether plaintiff was a “qualified individual” under the ADA and whether his firing violated the Act.

After a bench trial including evidence that throughout the probationary period plaintiff had violated work safety rules, been insubordinate and manifest a poor attitude, the district court entered judgment for the employer. The trial court found that despite the evidence of his disability, plaintiff failed to prove he was a qualified individual under the ADA because he did not show that either with or without reasonable accommodation he could perform the essential functions of his job in accordance with the employer’s reasonable expectations. The Hammel district and appellate courts found that the employee’s workplace problems resulted from a bad attitude and dangerous behavior, not from his blindness.

On appeal, the Hammel plaintiff challenged the relevance of evidence that his job performance was deficient, claiming that “non-disability-related evidence” of a worker’s failure to meet an employer’s expectations is irrelevant to whether he is a protected “qualified individual with a disability” for ADA purposes. The Seventh Circuit disagreed, holding that “the ADA does not shelter disabled individuals from adverse employment actions if the individual, for reasons unrelated to his disability (such as a poor work ethic, carelessness, bad attitude, insubordination or unprofessional demeanor), is not qualified for the job or is unable to perform the job’s essential functions or fulfill the requirements of the position as prescribed by the employer or ‘fails to meet his employer’s expectations.’” (citations omitted)

The Hammel Court further noted that “[t]he ADA also does not require that . . . any employer condone or accept irresponsible behavior from an employee who, like Hammel, despite repeated warnings failed to follow or comply with company rules and policies . . .[n]or does it protect an employee who is insubordinate and refuses to obey and accept direct orders from his supervisors – including but not limited to instructing him to get back to work in addition to creating a direct safety hazard to himself and fellow colleagues.”

In a cautionary note other employers are well-advised to heed, the Hammel court also remarked that “unfortunately,” the defendant employer had itself “made Hammel’s disability an issue and without doubt spurred this litigation when, in an attempt to protect him from the real truth of his discharge, they informed Hammel that he was being terminated, not because he was an undesirable employee with serious attitudinal problems, but because his vision impairment ‘interfered “to some extent” with his work and caused . . . concern for his own safety and the safety of his coworkers.”

The Hammel case teaches that employers may lawfully require disabled workers to meet the same legitimate work performance requirements they impose on non-disabled employees. When those performance expectations are not met, disabled and nondisabled employees should be counseled directly and candidly on what needs to change. Employers need not ignore performance deficits that are unconnected with a disability in their treatment of a disabled employee.