A federal district court recently grappled with whether an
employer’s termination of an employee for engaging in violent behavior was
lawful, where the employee’s behavior was related to an underlying mental
impairment. Joining other courts, the district court found that the
employer was justified in letting the employee go for unacceptable workplace
behavior, even though the conduct may have resulted from her underlying
conditions with anxiety and depression.
In Felix v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation,
Felix was employed as a customer service agent and driving test proctor.
Her job involved both working behind a counter to process driver’s license
applications, and administering road tests. During her employment, Felix
experienced anxiety at work that resulted in panic attacks. Her employer
accommodated these incidents by letting Felix take breaks to do breathing
exercises and calm down.
The incident leading to Felix’s termination occurred after
she suffered a particularly acute panic attack, when a supervisor found her
lying on the floor and crying loudly while trying to speak. She had
visible cuts on her wrist and could be heard saying things like “everybody
hates you” and “they want to get rid of you.” After an ambulance arrived
and Felix calmed down, she was moved to a break room. The next day, Felix
was informed that she would need to undergo an independent medical exam to
determine whether she was fit to return to duty, as the DOT was concerned both
for her own safety and the safety of applicants with whom she drove.
Ultimately, the medical examination concluded that Felix remained at increased
risk for potentially violent behavior toward herself and others. Based on
those results, the DOT terminated her employment on the grounds that she was
unfit for duty.
Affirming the DOT’s decision, the court determined that it
was undisputed that Felix’s termination was due to her behavior, which led the
DOT to determine she was unfit for duty. The court noted that, absent a
disability, the DOT would have been justified in terminating any employee who
engaged in similar behavior. Although Felix argued that the DOT was wrong
in its assessment of her fitness for duty, the court explained that was beside
the point: the issue was not whether the DOT’s reliance on the medical
report was wrong, but whether the DOT’s explanation for her termination was
dishonest and pretext for terminating her because of a disability. In
short, the court found that the DOT was not required to tolerate Felix’s
conduct, and that her termination was due entirely to unacceptable workplace
conduct, not because of a disability.
