Jarvis v. Potter
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20789, 500 F.3d 1113, 19 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1057 (2007)
Rule of Law:
Under the Rehabilitation Act, an employer may terminate an employee if it reasonably determines, based on an individualized assessment and objective evidence, that the employee poses a "direct threat" to workplace safety that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation; however, adverse employment actions taken in retaliation for requesting accommodations or filing EEO complaints are prohibited unless the employer provides a legitimate, non-pretextual reason.
Facts:
- In 1988, Lanny Bart Jarvis (Jarvis), a decorated Vietnam War veteran, began working for the United States Postal Service.
- Jarvis was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in 1998 or 1999.
- In late 2002 or early 2003, Jarvis twice struck coworker Cindy Frazier when she startled him.
- In May 2003, Jarvis reacted with clenched fists when startled by supervisor LesLee Bishop, apologized, and asked her to inform coworkers about his PTSD and to approach him from the front.
- On June 16, 2003, Jarvis grabbed and struck coworker Al Nielsen in the chest after Nielsen grabbed his arms from behind, and Jarvis reported having internal thoughts during the incident that he was "ready to kill the guy."
- On July 8, 2003, during a due-process meeting, Jarvis stated that his PTSD was worsening, he could no longer stop the first blow, he could kill someone if he hit them in the right place, and he could not safely return to the workplace.
- On July 9, 2003, Sonia Hales, Jarvis's health-care practitioner, sent a letter to the Postal Service stating that Jarvis's PTSD was chronic and its unpredictable nature might pose a threat in the workplace.
- On July 17, 2003, Jarvis filed a discrimination complaint with the EEO office, alleging discrimination based on a mental disability.
Procedural Posture:
- On August 24, 2004, Lanny Bart Jarvis filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against the Postal Service, alleging discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act.
- On November 14, 2005, the Postal Service moved for summary judgment.
- On March 17, 2006, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Postal Service on both claims, ruling that Jarvis was not a "qualified individual" due to posing a direct threat and failed to show pretext for his retaliation claims.
- Jarvis filed a timely notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Appellant), with the Postal Service as the Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does an employee with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) who has exhibited violent reactions to being startled, and stated he can no longer control his initial aggressive response, pose a "direct threat" to the health and safety of others in the workplace that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation, thereby rendering him not a "qualified individual" under the Rehabilitation Act? 2. Did the Postal Service retaliate against Lanny Bart Jarvis by specific actions, such as placing him on unpaid leave, denying his request to retire on disability instead of termination, and denying access to accrued leave, for requesting accommodation and filing EEO complaints, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Hartz
Yes, the Postal Service's determination that Lanny Bart Jarvis posed a direct threat was objectively reasonable, thereby establishing that he was not a "qualified individual" under the Rehabilitation Act for his discrimination claim. However, some of Jarvis's retaliation claims were not adequately addressed by the lower court. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on Jarvis's discrimination claim, finding that the Postal Service's determination that Jarvis posed a direct threat to the health and safety of others was objectively reasonable. The court applied standards from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which are cross-referenced by the Rehabilitation Act. Under these standards, a "direct threat" is a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation, assessed based on an individualized evaluation, current medical knowledge, and objective evidence, considering the duration, nature, likelihood, and imminence of the potential harm (29 C.F.R. § 1630.2®). The court cited Bragdon v. Abbott to establish that an employer's assessment must be objectively reasonable, even if the employer is not a health-care professional, and Den Hartog v. Wasatch Academy for upholding an employer's direct-threat assessment based on undisputed objective facts. The Postal Service's decision was objectively reasonable because it was based on an individualized assessment considering the Nielsen and Frazier incidents, the letter from Jarvis's own therapist (Sonia Hales) stating his PTSD posed a workplace threat, and Jarvis's own admissions that his PTSD was worsening, he could not stop the first blow, and he could kill someone. The court found that these facts satisfied the EEOC's four factors for a direct threat (duration, severity, likelihood, and imminence). The court rejected Jarvis's proposed accommodation (coworkers warned not to startle him) as unreasonable, reasoning that it would be impossible to eliminate the risk of accidental startling in an active workplace and would improperly shift the burden of safety onto coworkers. The court stressed that the law does not require an employer to wait for a serious injury to occur. Regarding the retaliation claims, the court affirmed summary judgment for the Postal Service on two specific claims: the alleged withholding of Larry Palmer’s statement and Jarvis's initial placement on administrative leave. The court found no evidence that the failure to forward Palmer's statement was retaliatory, given Bishop had no reason to believe it would help and Jarvis admitted his dangerousness regardless. The initial administrative leave was justified by the Postal Service's legitimate, non-pretextual reason that Jarvis posed an immediate threat. However, the court reversed summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings on other retaliation claims: placing Jarvis on leave without pay, denying his request to retire on disability instead of being terminated, and denying access to accrued vacation and sick leave. The court found that Jarvis had established a prima facie case for these claims (protected activity, adverse action, temporal proximity for causation), and the Postal Service failed to provide legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for these specific adverse actions, as distinct from the overall decision to remove him from the workplace.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial guidance on the "direct threat" defense under the Rehabilitation Act (and by extension, the ADA), affirming that an employer's decision to terminate a disabled employee for safety reasons must be based on an objectively reasonable, individualized assessment. It underscores that employers are not required to tolerate a known risk of harm and need not await a serious injury to act, particularly when an employee's own statements and medical reports confirm the danger. Furthermore, the ruling differentiates between the employer's legitimate decision to remove a dangerous employee and potentially retaliatory adverse actions taken around that decision, compelling employers to provide legitimate, non-pretextual reasons for all adverse actions in response to protected activities. This distinction can lead to more nuanced litigation, requiring employers to justify each step of an adverse employment action rather than relying solely on the underlying reason for termination.
