Well no she wasn't an employee but one may argue she was interviewing for
the job.

I think the weakness in the argument is, just because a couple of
co-contestants called her "crazy" doesn't mean she actually has an
"impairment" as defined by the ADA.

And even if she did have an "impairment" of course Trump could say that it
did affect "essential functions of the
employment position for which the individual applied" because you can't have
a bizarre-acting person running a multi-million-dollar enterprise. (Don't
tell Eisner that)

From: http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/9/emw161758.htm
Did Trump Make a Legal Goof In Firing Stacie J?
Apprentice contestant deemed "crazy" by other applicants and accepted by
Trump as a basis for termination could have actually violated the American
Disabilities Act.
Baltimore, MD (PRWEB) September 24, 2005 -- According to the American
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), a company covered by the Act, may not

against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability
of such individual in regard to job application procedures such as hiring,
advancement, or discharge of employees.
The term Adisability@ according to the ADA means, with respect to an
individual, one who: (1) has a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of that
person, (2) has a record of such an impairment, or (3) is regarded as

such an impairment. However, to be protected by the ADA, an individual

a disability must be able to perform the essential functions of the
employment position for which the individual applied. The ADA protects
individuals from discrimination even if they are not yet employed, but are
only applying for a job.
Against this legal backdrop, a review of the events of Thursday's latest
Apprentice reality T.V. program indicates that there were various ADA

that Mr. Trump's legal staff should have brought to his attention prior to
his decision to fire Stacie J. Essentially, on the first episode of the

series Stacie J exhibited signs of what her teammates deemed was

behavior. What viewers saw was unclear. At one point Stacie irrationally
believed that other team members were purposely ignoring her. She also
exhibited other signs of erratic behavior, including picking up an eight
ball and using it to forecast the future. Her teammates claimed they felt
threatened and were nervous around her following the episode and dismissed
her as a serious player following the event.
In the following episodes, Stacie was given low level or in some cases
completely meaningless tasks. She was called into the boardroom on two
consecutive episodes, although, admittedly, the other team members had
difficulty identifying specific tasks that she failed at. Finally, one of
the team members confessed to Mr. Trump that the reason for Stacie's
appearance in the boardroom was due primarily because of the erratic
behavior she exhibited in Episode 1 and the concerns those presented. One

the team members even suggested that Stacie's condition may be clinical.
After Trump verified with the other team members as to the accuracy of

events he fired Stacie for being a "loose cannon."
Prior to Trump's decision, had Trump considered the ADA, he would have

privy to this ADA analysis. Stacie J may actually have had a mental
disability. Whether her condition was schizophrenia, paranoia or

personality disorder, she may have been covered by the ADA. However, even

Stacie J had in fact no disability, if Trump regarded her as being

meaning if he wrote her off as "crazy", a "loose cannon" or something of

like, then arguably his company regarded her as being disabled and she

then likely be entitled to ADA protection.
In Trump's defense, his best argument for firing Stacie in spite of the

was that he couldn't take a chance with someone like her running one of

companies. In other words, Stacie J could not perform the "essential
functions" of the position. Understandably, the position Trump had was of
such high level, that he simply couldn't bet the ranch on a crazy person.
However, given the dynamics of the show, this defense, while strong on its
face, may not actually prevail. The show provides Trump a unique

to actually observe and review each candidate's performance. As such, the
issue is not strictly whether Stacie J is a loose cannon, but rather

that craziness interferes with her ability to perform the essential
functions of the job. Consequently, what Trump should have done is to

from the team members that Stacie J failed at various tasks on the weekly
project. Unlike many employers interviewing candidates for a position,

knowledge of a candidate's performance ability is second hand, as it comes
through either a resume or professional reference.
As such, had Stacie J, week after week, been able to perform on the

at a high level and repeatedly demonstrate her reliability, business
judgment and responsibility, she could have shown Mr. Trump over that time
period her ability to be the apprentice. In such case, his concern that

was a "loose cannon" would be legally unjustified.
In this case, what was lacking from the reports of Stacie's team members

the identification of specific tasks at which she failed which demonstrate
that she could not perform the essential elements of the eventual

Trump had to hear something along the lines of "Stacie J failed at the

of securing the toothpaste correctly, which was essential to the project.
She failed because she didn't account for x, y, and z. This put the

in jeopardy."
Instead, the team members Maria and Liz, really couldn't identify any
specific tasks she ruined. In the prior episode, the project leader,

admitted to knowingly placing Stacie on a task that was useless in order

get her out of the way. However, it appeared to viewers that she did that
based on her perception of Stacie J. In that sense, there is no question
that Ivana regarded Stacie J as disabled in accordance with the ADA

Finally, it should be noted that in no way does this article suggest or
allege that: (a) Donald Trump is a bigot; (b) Donald Trump knowingly or
actually violated the ADA statute; or (c) Stacie J would actually prevail

a lawsuit. It does however, affirmatively suggest to managers, business
owners and human resource departments across America that it is illegal to
simply terminate an employee for a profound belief of that employee's

ADA also covers applicants for employment, and the program calls what is
going on an extended interview for a job.