Can an employer refuse to hire an individual who poses a danger to himself on the job?

You are evaluating candidates for a team leader position at your company's oil refinery. One of the candidates has a liver condition, and you fear the toxins at the refinery might exacerbate his health problem. Can you consider this fact when making your employment decision, or would that violate the Americans with Disabilities Act?

According to the United States Supreme Court, an employer may refuse to hire an individual whose disability would pose a direct threat of harm to himself on the job. While the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) only mentions a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals, the threat of harm to coworkers is just an example-but not an exhaustive list-of job-related issues an employer may consider when hiring. Aside from the fact that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission interpreted the ADA's language to include a threat of harm to self, limiting an employer's consideration to only threats to coworkers would prevent employers from considering the safety of customers and other non-employees. Also, employers may have legitimate concerns that hiring workers who pose threats to themselves would violate safety requirements.

But the Court was careful to warn employers not to fall into the paternalistic practice of categorically refusing to hire individuals with disabilities for their own good. Employers must individually assess each employee and any health or safety threats posed by the employee's placement in the job. If they don't, employers risk costly liability.