February 05, 2016
Perhaps the most difficult employment situation with which HR professionals must deal involves behavioral issues which could be emanating from medical conditions. While disruptive behavior might be a product of a narcissistic personality, it might also
be a symptom of a recognized medical condition such as Tourette’s Syndrome, manic depressive syndrome, acute paranoia, etc.
While an employer has a right, and in fact a duty, to maintain decorum in the workplace, it also must reasonably accommodate employees who have a disability recognized under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008.
To be protected under the ADA/ADAAA, an employee must have a medical condition which substantially limits a major life function. In spite of the medical condition, the employee must otherwise be able to perform the essential job duties, with or without reasonable accommodations. In order to navigate the treacherous shoals of managing disruptive behavior while at the same time comporting with legal standards, one must focus on the behavior and not the condition. Maintaining a safe and cooperative workplace is a perfectly legitimate and laudable goal. It must, in fact, be regarded as a priority.
When an employee threatens a cooperative and productive workplace, the threat must be addressed. In order for an employee with a disability to be protected under the ADA/ADAAA, they must be qualified to perform the essential functions of their job with or without reasonable accommodations. Toward this end, every job description for every job in an organization should list as an essential job function, “the ability to work cooperatively with coworkers.”
This criteria is not a self serving function, but is, in fact, a presumed criteria for every position within an organization. Listing the criteria as an essential element of a job may be viewed as, only stating the obvious, but on the other, it is also strengthening thecompany’s position when it must deal with disruptive behavior which may or may not be the product of a disability.
If, in fact, the disruptive behavior is a product of a medical condition, it may not be protected under the ADA/ADAAA if all attempts to accommodate the medical condition would place an undue burden upon the employer. Some accommodations are obvious and must be considered. These would include medical leaves of absence, job transfers, reduced schedules, offers of job assistance, etc. However, it does leave open the prospect that any or all of these accommodations would be either ineffective or unduly burdensome.
If this conclusion is reached, then the ADA/ADAAA would not apply in that the employee arguably would not be “otherwise qualified to perform the job either with or without reasonable accommodation,” leaving available the option of discharging the employee.
Again, the challenge is to focus on the behavior and the deleterious effect it has in the workplace and the reasonableness of any accommodation considered – not the condition. To put it in a proper context, an employee’s inability to work cooperatively with coworkers is no different from an employee’s inability to perform a physical requirement for a job even if both are related to medical conditions.