Opinion ID: 885110
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Independent Assessment of the Risk of Harm

Text: ¶ 37 In its findings of fact, the District Court made only the following finding concerning assessment of the risk of substantial harm: Conoco gathered sufficient information about Plaintiff to assess the potential injury to Plaintiff and others if Plaintiff were employed by Conoco in the Helper position. Hafner argues that the court erred in failing to make more specific findings concerning whether Conoco discharged its affirmative duty to conduct an independent assessment of the risk of substantial harm, and whether such risk could be reduced or eliminated by an accommodation. Hafner bases his argument on our decision in Reeves and on Rule 24.9.606(7) and (8), ARM. In Reeves, we specifically disapproved of an employer making unilateral decisions regarding what would be best for its disabled employee, regardless of the good intentions of the employer. Reeves, ¶ 35. We intimated that in order to establish the risk of harm defense, an employer must speak directly with the disabled employee about the seriousness of his or her condition and become generally informed about the effects of his or her condition. Reeves, ¶ 35. ¶ 38 In a later part of Reeves, where we discussed the employer's failure to make reasonable accommodations, we held that when an employer defends an employment discrimination action on the basis that no accommodation can be made without posing a risk of harm, the employer has an affirmative duty to conduct an independent assessment of the risk of substantial harm. Reeves, ¶ 42. We held that such an independent assessment involves: evaluation by the employer of the probability and severity of potential injury in the circumstances, taking into account all relevant information regarding the work and medical history of the person with the disability before taking the adverse employment action in question. Reeves, ¶ 42 (quoting Rule 24.9.606(8), ARM). We again stressed the importance of the employer speaking directly with the employee concerning ways to ensure the employee's safety in future employment. Reeves, ¶ 42. ¶ 39 Rule 24.9.606(7), ARM, provides further guidance on this issue. That rule provides: If an employer defends an adverse employment action against a person with a physical or mental disability on the grounds that an accommodation would endanger the health or safety of a person, the employer's failure to independently assess whether the accommodation would create a reasonable probability of substantial harm will create a disputable presumption that the employer's justification is a pretext for discrimination on the basis of disability. We believe this rule further underscores the importance of the independent assessment requirement. ¶ 40 The federal regulations under the ADA provide useful guidance as well. The regulations detail the highly individualized nature of the federal independent assessment required under that statute's direct threat analysis. The interpretive guidelines to 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r), provide: Determining whether an individual poses a significant risk of substantial harm to others must be made on a case by case basis.. . . For individuals with physical disabilities, the employer must identify the aspect of the disability that would pose the direct threat. The employer should then consider the four factors listed in part 1630. . . . Such consideration must rely on objective, factual evidencenot on subjective perceptions, irrational fears, patronizing attitudes, or stereotypesabout the nature or effect of a particular disability, or of disability generally. Relevant evidence may include input from the individual with a disability, the experience of the individual with a disability in previous similar positions, and opinions of medical doctors, rehabilitation counselors, or physical therapists who have expertise in the disability involved and/or direct knowledge of the individual with the disability. Generalized fears about risks from the employment environment, such as exacerbation of the disability caused by stress, cannot be used by an employer to disqualify an individual with a disability. ¶ 41 In light of Reeves, and the clear import of the independent assessment requirement expressed by the Administrative Rules of Montana and the federal regulations interpreting the ADA, we hold that when an employer defends an employment discrimination case by asserting risk of harm, the employer has a duty to independently assess that risk of harm in accordance with Rule 24.9.606(8), ARM, regardless of whether the case arises under the McDonnell or Reeves burden-shifting tests, and regardless of whether the alleged risk of harm is directed to the employee's initial qualifications or the existence of reasonable accommodations. We hold that in determining whether an employer has discharged its duty in this regard, a district court must make specific findings concerning with whom the employer spoke about the risk of substantial harm and whether the employer took into account all relevant information concerning the risk of harm including the following: the seriousness of the employee's injury, the employee's work history, the employee's medical history, and the existence of reasonable accommodations that could possibly reduce the risk of substantial harm to the employee. These findings are necessary to a complete resolution of an employment discrimination claim. Applying our holding to the instant case, we determine that the District Court erred in failing to make more specific findings concerning whether Conoco adequately discharged its affirmative duty to independently assess the risk of substantial harm to Hafner.