May an employer refuse to return to work an employee with a disability-related occupational injury simply because it assumes, that s/he poses some increased risk workers' compensation?

May an employer refuse to return to work an employee with a disability-related occupational injury simply because it assumes, correctly or incorrectly, that s/he poses some increased risk of reinjury and increased workers' compensation costs? No, unless an employer can show that employment of the person in the position poses a ''direct threat.'' Where an employer refuses to return an employee to work because it assumes, correctly or incorrectly, that his/her disability- related occupational injury creates merely some increased risk of further occupational injury and increased workers' compensation costs, it discriminates on the basis of disability. The employer may not refuse to return to work an employee who is able to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without a reasonable accommodation, unless it can show that returning the person to the position poses a ''direct threat.'' (See the discussion of direct threat in questions 11 and 12, above.) The fact that an employee has had a disability-related occupational injury does not, by itself, indicate that s/he is unable to perform the essential functions of the job or that returning him/her to work poses a direct threat. In some circumstances, evidence about an employee's disability-related occupational injury may be relevant to whether s/he can perform the essential functions of the job, with or without a reasonable accommodation, or it may be relevant to the direct threat analysis. An employer should consider the pertinent factors listed in questions 11 and 12, above, in applying the direct threat analysis in this context.