## Facts

- Howard Den Hartog worked for over 25 years as a teacher/employee at Wasatch Academy, a private residential boarding high school in Mt. Pleasant, Utah.
- Den Hartog’s adult son, Nathaniel, lived with him on or near campus during 1993–94.
- Nathaniel had bipolar affective disorder and experienced manic episodes.
- Over about a year, Nathaniel engaged in escalating violent and threatening conduct toward members of the school community, including threats against the headmaster’s children and an attack on a former schoolmate.
- In 1994, Wasatch terminated Den Hartog’s employment; although the school stated his position was eliminated, the record indicated Nathaniel’s conduct was a central reason.
- Den Hartog sued for (1) association discrimination under the ADA and (2) breach of an employment contract.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on the ADA claim; the contract claim went to trial, and a jury found for defendants.
- Den Hartog appealed the ADA summary judgment and an evidentiary ruling denying his motion in limine in the contract trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the ADA’s association discrimination provision permits an employer to discharge a non-disabled employee when the employee’s disabled relative, because of the disability, poses a direct threat to workplace safety.
2. Whether the ADA requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodations to a non-disabled employee based on the disability of the employee’s relative or associate.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a motion in limine to exclude evidence related to the relative’s conduct and its impact on the school.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed.
- The ADA allows discharge of a non-disabled employee when the employee’s disabled relative or associate, because of the disability, poses a direct threat to the workplace.
- The summary-judgment record showed no genuine dispute that Nathaniel’s conduct posed an objectively significant safety risk within the school’s residential community.
- The ADA’s association provision does not impose a reasonable-accommodation duty for the disability-related needs or conduct of an employee’s relative or associate.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence; it was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

## Legal Principles

- ADA association discrimination (42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(4)) targets adverse actions based on myths, fears, or stereotypes about a person’s relationship with an individual with a disability.
- An employer may act on concrete, disability-related conduct by an associate when that conduct creates a “direct threat,” meaning a significant risk to others’ health or safety that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.
- The association provision does not require an employer to provide reasonable accommodations to a non-disabled employee to address caregiving demands or to manage a relative’s disability-related conduct.
- Evidentiary rulings on motions in limine are reviewed for abuse of discretion; relevant evidence may be admitted unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court held that the ADA does not bar an employer from terminating a non-disabled employee when the employee’s disabled relative’s conduct poses an objectively demonstrable direct threat to workplace safety, and it also held that the ADA does not require accommodations based solely on association with a disabled person; the evidentiary ruling and judgment for the employer were affirmed.


Den Hartog v. Wasatch Acad., 129 F.3d 1076 (10th Cir. 1997)