I would say an employer does not have to tolerate dangerous behavior, and should not risk the health and safety of other employees, the employee with the medical condition, or the business. However, if dangerous behavior is caused by a lack of reasonable accommodation, or if dangerous behavior could be prevented if the employer would provide reasonable accommodation, then the employer would have to provide it, assuming the employer is covered by the ADA or a similar state law, and assuming the employee has a medical impairment that meets the definition of disability under the law.

I respect you deeply, and all your points are true. They just involve a lot of IFs that I did not assume outside the given facts. I aim for the 95% answer, rather than the 5% exception. If he is an exception, the GA Attorney should be able to identify how. Otherwise, I have not given him unrealistic expectations of a windfall.

Thank you for your kind words.

The given facts include that the asker informed the employer at least twice about the need for accommodation and the employer was not responsive. A request for accommodation does not require any magic words; the employee need only ask for help, per federal case law and the regulations.

I interpreted the facts to be that the asker requested accommodation, did not receive it or even the mandatory interactive process, had a snap-back (whatever that is) evidently because of the lack of accommodation, then was fired because of the snap-back. This is a perfect example of what the ADA was designed to prevent.

Totally agree the asker needs an attorney in his or her state.

And I don't believe I've given any hint of a windfall. I restricted my response to reasonable accommodation-related issues, not economic remedies.

A large part of my practice involves representing people with disabilities, both physical and mental. These clients seek legal assistance because they want to work and the employer is preventing them from doing so.

I understand your primary practice area is workers' compensation and I understand there is a belief that workers' compensation applicants milk the system. We may see a different type of employee.

Many of the attorneys who participate regularly here on the Avvo Q and A struggle with the issue in responding to the public questions of how much to assume from the question and how much to suggest to the asker. I personally have solved this tension perfectly-- several times over by now, in fact. I need to check and see which way I am doing it this week, however. Seriously, it is a chronic issue for all of us, and there are potential perils and unintended consequences with either mode. Perhaps that is the "real" reason that Avvo provides for three responses: one to answer the question that was actually asked; one to answer the question that should/could have been asked; and one to assert the need for the asker to see an attorney.

At the least, there is a wealth of riches, as the exchange by both of you on this question made so plain.