[busterarm]

I did not say that at all. I am saying that because of ADA rules, an unfortunate side effect is that people suffer from workplace harassment/violence because their coworkers are too unstable to function amicably in an office environment. I said that "I don't know what to do about this".

Any of us would be fired for way more benign behavior/comments, but because the person is a protected class, basically "fuck you, deal with it".

I had to tolerate a belligerent coworker for 2 years who was making the whole team's life hell. We paid them full salary and gave them no tasks (they weren't completing anything assigned anyway) until they were motivated to quit. The whole time, team morale was miserable and we lost good people due to the situation. Within a month of quitting their job, they made the news for stripping naked in the street one night and attacking a bunch of people with a knife. Yay, I guess.

[js8]

Look, I am not an American, I am not sure what rules you refer to specifically, but I have lot of doubt that a person from protected class would be able to sue if they had a history of abuse.

[autoexec]

Right? I think that company either must have had a very bad HR department or there was some other factor besides the ADA tying their hands. I don't believe the ADA would force a company to keep a worker in a job they couldn't (or refused to) do or force a company to keep an abusive employee who was genuinely threatening the safety of other employees. At the worst it might require them to put in the work to properly document the problems, but they should be doing that anyway.