Opinion ID: 2786368
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Direct-Threat Defense

Text: The direct-threat defense stems from the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under the Act, an employer cannot discriminate on the basis of a disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). But, an employer may decide not to hire disabled individuals if they pose a “direct threat to the health or safety” of themselves or others. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.15(b)(2). A “direct threat” involves “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the [person] or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). The existence of a direct threat is an affirmative defense to a statutory claim of discrimination. McKenzie v. Benton, 388 F.3d 1342, 1353-54 (10th Cir. 2004). For this defense, Beverage Distributors had to 1 The EEOC urges an abuse-of-discretion standard. We disagree. That standard is appropriate only when we are reviewing a district court’s decision to give (or not to give) a specific instruction. See Lederman v. Frontier Fire Prot., Inc., 685 F.3d 1151, 1154 (10th Cir. 2012) (stating that appellate courts “review a district court’s decision to give a particular jury instruction for abuse of discretion”). Here, we are reviewing the legal sufficiency of an instruction, which is a question we review de novo. Townsend v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 294 F.3d 1232, 1237 (10th Cir. 2002); Sherouse v. Ratchner, 573 F.3d 1055, 1059 (10th Cir. 2009). 4 show that it reasonably determined that Mr. Sungaila had posed a direct threat. See Jarvis v. Potter, 500 F.3d 1113, 1122 (10th Cir. 2007) (stating that “the fact-finder does not independently assess whether it believes that the employee posed a direct threat,” but “determine[s] [instead] whether the employer’s decision was objectively reasonable”). In sum, Beverage Distributors could avoid liability by showing that it reasonably determined: 1. Mr. Sungaila posed a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of himself or others, and 2. that risk could not be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.