Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—N.D. Ind.: No trial on ADA, FMLA claims for manufacturing employee fired after saying coworkers should be shot, (Oct 3, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

“Threatening to shoot co-workers—or, at least, screaming out loud in a work setting that co-workers should be shot—might reasonably be considered a fireable offense.”

An assistant director for a manufacturing company, and a known gun aficionado, who was fired several months after a workplace meltdown during which he called coworkers “mother*****s” and said they should be shot, was unable to show he was “otherwise qualified” to do his job or that his firing was caused by his disability, a federal court in Indiana stated, granting summary judgment against his ADA disparate treatment and failure-to-accommodate claims. Nor could the employee, who was placed on leave by his employer, advance his FMLA interference claim, said the court, rejecting his contention that forced leave alone established his claim and finding he was not entitled to reinstatement (Murphy v. Forest River Inc., No. 1:24-CV-170-HAB (N.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2025)).

Meltdown. In May 2023, the employee, an assistant director of parts, service, and warranty for a manufacturer of recreational vehicles, had a meltdown in his office when he lost work on his computer. In a tirade overheard by his coworkers, he called IT employees “mother******s” and said that “they should be shot.” After his outburst, he left the office, reported the incident to a supervisor, and made an appointment with his therapist.

The next day, the employee was told to work at home while the incident was investigated. Shortly after that, his therapist told the company that she had been working with the employee on anger management and suggested ways the company could help him. Although the employee had been previously diagnosed with major depressive disorder and anxiety, the therapist did not mention this.

Investigation. During the investigation, HR spoke with several employees who had overheard the tirade and followed up with them two months later about the possibility of the employee returning. The investigation also revealed that he owned at least 25 guns, often talked about guns at work, and owned a gunsmithing business.

FMLA leave. At some point, the employee’s therapist asked HR about returning the employee to work. The company ultimately told him he needed to submit “something, anything... saying that... [he] was able to return to work” and “wouldn’t harm himself or someone else.” The employee was also placed on FMLA leave.

Termination. Four days into his leave, the employee submitted a “Safety Plan” that described how he could identify triggers and use coping strategies, among other things, but did not say he was safe to return to work. After declaring the plan insufficient, the company offered to connect him to professionals who could provide him with the certification he needed. He was later given a questionnaire for a healthcare professional to fill out asking whether he could safely return to work. He was ultimately fired when he failed to timely return the questionnaire.

Disparate treatment. Although the parties disputed, for purposes of the employee’s disparate treatment claim, whether he disabled, the court pointed out that while he never proclaimed himself disabled during the months-long dialogue with the company, he was going to therapy, the company communicated with his therapist, and it tried to connect him with a psychologist. Thus, said the court, a jury could reasonably conclude the company knew he was disabled or regarded his as disabled.

But his disability, the court observed, was only relevant if he was “otherwise qualified” to do his job and his firing was caused by his disability. And here, the court, citing the Seventh Circuit’s 1997 Palmer v. Cir. Ct. of Cook Cnty, Ill. Decision, found it clear that “threatening other employees disqualifies one” from protection under the ADA. Noting further that the employee had to show the company would not have fired him but for his actual or perceived disability and that it did not consider his objectively fireable offense when doing so, the court stated that it could not “conceive of a jury that could make such a finding.”

Nor could the employee argue that the company could not take his statements seriously as he owned more than two dozen guns at the time of the tirade as well as a gunsmithing business and he conceded that his coworkers had reasons to be concerned about what he said. Thus, the court found this claim failed as a matter of law.

Failure to accommodate. As to his failure-to-accommodate claim, the court pointed out that not only was he not a qualified individual, but the company engaged in good faith in the interactive process. It spoke with him and his therapist and gave him a form for a healthcare provider to fill out and identify work restrictions. He failed, however, to respond to the what the company needed to return him to work. Thus, this claim also failed on summary judgment.

FMLA interference. The employee next argued that the company interfered with his FMLA rights when it forced him to take involuntary leave. But most courts, observed the court here, have held that forced FMLA leave does not deny an employee FMLA benefits unless “the employee’s leave was exhausted before claiming interference.” And while the employee exhausted his leave, “typically,” the court continued, “‘an involuntary-leave interference claim ripens only when and if the employee seeks FMLA leave at a later date, and such leave is not available because the employee was wrongfully forced to use FMLA leave in the past.’”

Rather than argue he was unable to take more FMLA leave in the future because of his leave exhaustion, the employee contended that the forced leave alone established his claim. His “complaint that he was granted benefits, albeit unwillingly, cannot on its own prove he was denied those benefits,” the court reasoned.

Failure to reinstate. Rejecting next the employee’s assertion the company wrongfully failed to reinstate him, the court pointed out that the right to reinstatement is not absolute. Because the employee’s threats gave the company grounds to fire him, its failure to reinstate him did not deny him FMLA benefits.

Fitness-for-duty certification. Finally, the employee argued that the company never gave him written notice of the need to provide a fitness-for-duty certification with his FMLA designation notice. The company admittedly left blank two boxes on the designation notice—one saying a certification “will be” required and another saying one “will not be”—but claimed it was an administrative error. It’s written policy, however, stated that it only needed to provide oral notice as to when a fitness-for-duty certification is required and, here, the day before putting him on leave, the company asked him for “something, anything... saying that... [he] was able to return to work” and “wouldn’t harm himself or someone else.” To the court, this, together with the ensuing months of communications, heavily suggested he received oral notice.

Additionally, even if the company failed to comply with the notice requirement, the employee still had to show some impairment of his rights and resulting prejudice, which he could not do as preexisting grounds for firing him negated his right to reinstatement.

Moreover, the court pointed out, the employee behaved as if he understood what he needed to do to satisfy the company’s requirements when he submitted his Safety Plan days after being placed on leave. That resulted in a months-long dialogue that included efforts by the company to help him submit what he needed, including an offer to connect him with healthcare professionals who could provide the certification. “Given the extent of these discussions, [the employee’s] behavior, the passage of time, and the efforts made by [the company],” a reasonable jury, said the court, could not find the company failed to provide the employee notice of the certification requirement.

The case is No. 1:24-CV-170-HAB.

Judge: Brady, H.

Attorneys: Thaddeus M. Keefer (Cleveland Lehner Cassidy) for Warren Murphy. Erin Linder Hanig (Southbank Legal) for Forest River Inc.

Companies: Forest River Inc.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination EmployeeLeave Retaliation Discharge IndianaNews GCNNews