What is the “Direct Threat Defense” and could you argue the Government is immune from liability if Brad sues? Why or why not?
A direct threat is defined as a significant risk or substantial harm to the health or safety of the employee or others, which cannot be eliminated or reduced by a reasonable accommodation. This defense is intended to shield employers who must take an employee’s disability into account in order to protect employees from significant danger.
In this case, I would have to say I do believe the government is immune from liability if Brad sues. Being in the position that Brad is in as an air traffic controller, it is imperative that he is in good health and keep his blood pressure regulated in an effort to make sure his daily work tasks are carried out in the most efficient manner possible.
The department of Labor defines Workers’ Compensation as “a form of insurance paid by employers.” For worker’s comp insurance, there are no payroll deductions taken out of employees’ salaries. Workers’ comp will cover medical expenses for injuries sustained on the job and wage-loss compensation until the injured employee is able to return to work. It is important to note that each state has its own worker’s comp fund, but all systems are bound by the same basic principles: An employee injured in the scope of employment is entitled to worker’s comp benefits; the insurance covers employees but not independent contractors; and fault is immaterial regardless of employee negligence or employer’s precautions. In exchange for these benefits, employees forfeit their right to sue the employer.