Timothy Mayo v. Pcc Structurals
795 F.3d 941
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Mayo, diagnosed with major depressive disorder, worked at PCC Structurals since 1987 and faced workplace issues with a supervisor beginning in 2010.
- In January 2011 a co-worker complained about the supervisor’s conduct, prompting a meeting with Mayo, the co-worker, and PCC HR in Oregon.
- Shortly after, Mayo threatened co-workers with violence, describing shootings and demanding to come to PCC to target management.
- PCC suspended Mayo, notified police, and Mayo was hospitalized after cooperating with law enforcement; he later took OFLA and FMLA leave for two months.
- A treating clinician cleared Mayo to return with a request for a different supervisor; Mayo was terminated on May 20, 2011, with dispute over whether termination occurred before or after his medical leave.
- Mayo sued in state court in August 2011 alleging termination violated Oregon’s disability statute; PCC removed to federal court in January 2012; the district court granted summary judgment in PCC’s favor in July 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Mayo a qualified individual under Oregon disability law/ADA at time of discharge? | Mayo argues disability protection applies and he remained qualified. | PCC contends Mayo’s violent threats show he was not qualified. | Mayo not qualified; threats disqualified him under the statute. |
| Did Mayo’s threats require an individualized direct-threat assessment to preserve qualification? | Mayo seeks direct-threat analysis to show continued qualification. | Court rejects need for individualized assessment; threats themselves negate qualification. | No_start: threats alone make Mayo not qualified; no additional direct-threat analysis required. |
| Did the district court correctly apply the McDonnell Douglas framework to this ADA/Oregon claim? | Mayo contends a prima facie case was established and pretext shown. | Mayo failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. | Court affirmed: Mayo failed to establish prima facie case; dismissal proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutton v. Elf Atochem N. Am., Inc., 273 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2001) (interpretation aligned with ADA for Oregon statute)
- Palmer v. Circuit Court, 117 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 1997) (violence-related threats can disqualify as not qualified)
- Calef v. Gillette Co., 322 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2003) (ADA does not require retention of an unqualified, dangerous employee)
- Weaving v. City of Hillsboro, 763 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2014) (rejected retention to avoid ADA liability when threat present)
- Curley v. City of North Las Vegas, 772 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2014) (direct-threat defense focuses on prospective future violence)
- Humphrey v. Mem'l Hosps. Ass'n, 239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (conduct stemming from disability treated as part of disability)
- Gambini v. Total Renal Care, Inc., 486 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2007) (disability-related conduct may be part of disability)
- Dark v. Curry County, 451 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2006) (employer may reassess accommodation; not required to retain dangerous employee)
- Sullivan v. River Valley Sch. Dist., 197 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 1999) (followed Palmer on threats and qualification)