Work stress shouldn't prompt court stress
Published 11/01/07

When a job becomes too stressful, an employee may legitimately decide for his physical and/or mental health that it is not worth continuing with his employment in that job. However, the effect the stresses of that job have on the employee does not obligate the employer to reasonably accommodate the employee under disability discrimination laws.

This point was illustrated in the case of William Schomburg v. Dell, Inc . wherein the New Hampshire Federal Court ruled in favor of Dell denying Schomburg's right to a jury trial on numerous employment claims he had made against his former employer including the assertion that Dell violated the Americans With Disabilities Act.

On October 15, 2007, the Court found, among other things, that Dell was entitled to summary judgment against Schomburg's claim that it had violated the ADA when it failed to reasonably accommodate him due to his major depression.

Schomburg had been employed as a systems engineer at Dell for more than 9 years. His job required travel during the work week which Schomburg did not like. In 2004, following a merger of Schomburg's team with another Dell team, Schomburg's job required more frequent weekend travel with little or no advance notice.

On April 14, 2005, Schomburg first resigned citing job-related stress and later asked for his job back and upon his request was put on leave of absence. Ultimately, when he failed to comply with the terms of the leave, which were established both under Dell's policies and federal law, being the Family and Medical Leave Act, Schomburg was terminated.

Among the variety of claims he raised against Dell was that it violated the ADA . In particular, Schomburg alleged that he was a qualified individual with a disability alleging that his disability was caused by major depression. He also alleged that he had a record of disability impairment and Dell regarded him as being substantially impaired or disabled and therefore Dell violated the ADA by failing to provide him reasonable accommodations due to Schomburg's known disability or the perception of Schomburg as having disabilities.

The Court noted that it is not enough under the ADA for Schomburg to prove that he could not work in his particular job or that Dell perceived him as not being able to work in that particular job, but that he must demonstrate that he was, in fact, or perceived by Dell to be, substantially impaired in either a class of jobs or broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and ability to have a disability affording protection under the ADA. The only evidence submitted as to his impairment to do jobs was his inability to continue to do his specific job that required extensive, unpredictable travel because of the stress that job caused him.

Schomburg did not show that anyone at Dell thought he was impaired by stress beyond what he himself claimed. He also provided no evidence that anyone at Dell believed he was disabled from either a particular class of jobs or broad range of jobs. Therefore, Schomburg provided no evidence to support his ADA claim and Dell was granted summary judgment preventing Schomburg from having an opportunity to have a jury hear that claim.

Simply put, an employee may legitimately be unable to perform a particularly stressful job, but that does not give the employee the right to an employment disability discrimination claim against his employer. The alternative under the law is usually to find another less stressful job, whether it be within your existing employer or outside that company with a new employer.

J. Daniel Marr is a director and shareholder of Hamblett & Kerrigan, P.A. His legal practice includes counseling businesses and business persons on a variety of legal issues, including employment, and advocating on their behalf. You can reach Attorney Marr by e-mail at: dmarr@hamker.com

This information is general information and may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. The information provided should not be relied upon as an indication of the actual state of the law or of future developments. The information contained on the Hamblett & Kerrigan website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If the information referenced may be of legal importance to you, you should consult with an attorney to provide you with legal guidance and opinion as the the effect of the current law upon your situation.