By Erica Shelley Nelson and Brennen Johnson
In Weaving v. City of Hillsboro, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that an Oregon police officer with ADHD could not qualify as disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prevented him from asserting the ADA’s protections. In his lawsuit, the Officer alleged that the City violated the ADA by terminating him because of this ADHD. At trial, a jury agreed with him and awarded over $775,000 in damages, including back-pay and front-pay, as well as attorney’s fees. However, the Court of Appeals reviewed the case and overruled the verdict after determining that the Officer’s ADHD did not present symptoms that were severe enough to qualify as a disability under the ADA.
Mathew Weaving was hired by the Hillsboro Police Department in 2006, after working as a police officer in a neighboring police department for over ten years. Early on at the Hillsboro Police Department, his superiors found that his experience and knowledge made him a valuable asset and he was quickly promoted to sergeant. Yet, despite the praise from his superiors, Weaving had difficulties with his subordinates. After a subordinate filed a grievance against Weaving, an internal investigator filed an official report stating that Weaving had “created and fostered a hostile work environment for his subordinates and peers.” The report further indicated that Weaving’s subordinates described him as “tyrannical, unapproachable, noncommunicative, belittling, demeaning, threatening, intimidating, arrogant, and vindictive.”
Upon the investigator’s recommendation, the City required Weaving to undergo a psychological evaluation to determine if he was fit for duty. Upon examination, two doctors concluded that he was fit for duty despite his ADHD diagnosis. The City then issued a letter to Weaving explaining that he would face termination for his pervasive negative interactions with subordinates and the severe impact he had on the work environment of the department, unless he could convince the Deputy Chief of Police otherwise. After a hearing, the City decided to terminate Weaving’s employment.
After his termination, Weaving filed his lawsuit in federal court, alleging that the City wrongfully terminated him in response to his ADHD. He argued that his ADHD impaired his ability to interact with others, leading to his negative confrontations with subordinates and, consequently, his termination. The City conceded that it fired Weaving because of his negative interactions with subordinates, but also argued that Weaving’s issues did not qualify as a disability under the ADA. It therefore claimed that Weaving was not entitled to the protections of the ADA.
Upon its review of the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals determined that the City was correct. While an impairment that resulted in an inability to interact with others would qualify as a disability, the Court determined that this type of disability would only include impairments that severely limit the ability to engage in interpersonal communications. It explained its reasoning:
Recognizing interacting with others as a major life activity of course does not mean that any cantankerous person will be deemed substantially limited in a major life activity. Mere trouble getting along with coworkers is not sufficient to show a substantial limitation… Weaving’s interpersonal problems do not amount to a substantial impairment of his ability to interact with others within the meaning of the ADA. Weaving’s ADHD may well have limited his ability to get along with others. But that is not the same as a substantial limitation on the ability to interact with others… Weaving was able to engage in normal social interactions. His interpersonal problems existed almost exclusively in his interactions with his peers and subordinates. He had little, if any, difficulty comporting himself appropriately with his supervisors… One who is able to communicate with others, though his communications may at times be offensive, “inappropriate, ineffective, or unsuccessful,” is not substantially limited in his ability to interact with others within the meaning of the ADA.
The Court further explained that its decision was aimed at preventing liability for ADA claims by any ill-tempered employee who creates a hostile work environment for his colleagues. Based on this reasoning, the Court of Appeals determined that Weaving did not suffer from sufficiently severe symptoms to qualify as disabled. Therefore, the Court concluded that it was legally impossible for the City to be liable to him under the ADA.
In overturning the verdict, the Ninth Circuit was clearly persuaded by the fact that Weaving was able to interact well with his superior officers, which negated his claim that his ADHD substantially limited his ability to do his job. Regardless of the holding here, ADHD may still qualify as a disability under the ADA. Whether the condition qualifies as a disability under the ADA will be largely fact dependent.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Mental Health Issues.
