Den Hartog v. Wasatch Academy
1997 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2622, 129 F. 3d 1076, 7 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 764 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) permits an employer to discipline or discharge a qualified, non-disabled employee if that employee's disabled relative or associate poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others in the workplace.
Facts:
- Howard Den Hartog was a long-time teacher at Wasatch Academy, a boarding school, and was required by school policy to live on campus with his family.
- Den Hartog's adult son, Nathaniel, who suffered from bipolar affective disorder, periodically lived with his parents on the Wasatch campus.
- In early 1993, Nathaniel engaged in disturbing behavior, including taking the headmaster's teenage son to a psychiatric hospital without permission and making threatening phone calls.
- In March 1993, Nathaniel left messages on the answering machine of headmaster Joseph Loftin, including a threat directed at Loftin's four-year-old daughter.
- Following these threats, a state judge ordered Nathaniel to be involuntarily committed, finding he posed an 'immediate danger of physical injury' to himself or others.
- After Nathaniel's release, Den Hartog's wife stated in a meeting with Loftin that Nathaniel would continue to be welcomed at their campus home for family events.
- In January 1994, Nathaniel physically assaulted a former schoolmate, breaking his ribs, and told the victim that he planned to 'get' headmaster Loftin next.
- In February 1994, Wasatch Academy informed Den Hartog that his employment contract would not be renewed for the following year.
Procedural Posture:
- Howard Den Hartog sued Wasatch Academy and its headmaster, Joseph Loftin, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.
- The complaint alleged a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a state law claim for breach of contract.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on both the ADA and contract claims.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ADA claim, dismissing it without a trial.
- The breach of contract claim proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.
- Den Hartog, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the ADA claim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) permit an employer to terminate a qualified, non-disabled employee because their disabled relative poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others in the workplace?
Opinions:
Majority - Ebel, Circuit Judge.
Yes. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) permits an employer to terminate a qualified, non-disabled employee whose disabled relative poses a direct threat to the workplace. The ADA's 'association provision' protects employees from adverse actions based on stereotypes or unfounded fears about a relative's disability, but it does not require an employer to ignore actual misconduct that rises to the level of a direct threat. While the court rejects a simple dichotomy between disability and disability-caused misconduct, it finds that the ADA's 'direct threat' defense is applicable here. Although the statutory text of the defense does not explicitly mention threats from an employee's associates, extending it to this context avoids the 'odd result' of allowing an employer to defend against threats from disabled employees and customers but not from an employee's disabled relatives. Here, there was no genuine dispute that Nathaniel's repeated threats and violent acts constituted objective evidence of a direct threat to the Wasatch community. Therefore, Wasatch Academy's decision to discharge Den Hartog was not a violation of the ADA.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the ADA's 'association provision' by establishing a major limitation on its protections. It holds that while employees are protected from discrimination based on stereotypes about their disabled associates, this protection ends when the associate's disability-related conduct constitutes a direct threat to workplace safety. The court's extension of the 'direct threat' defense, which is textually tied to employee qualifications, to the conduct of a non-employee associate creates a robust defense for employers. This precedent balances the anti-discrimination goals of the ADA with the legitimate safety concerns of employers, signaling that employers may take action against an employee to mitigate a verifiable threat posed by that employee's relative.
