United States: No Coverage For The Cantankerous? The Ninth Circuit Goes "Retro" In Finding "No Disability"

Last Updated: August 21 2014
Article by Peter J. Petesch

Novelist Peter De Vries and, later, Yogi Berra said: "nostalgia ain't what it used to be." 

In Weaving v. City of Hillsboro,1 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit waxed nostalgic by reversing a jury and lower court finding that a police officer with Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) had a "disability" within the meaning of the 2008 amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Ninth Circuit held that the former officer was not disabled, because his ADHD – and associated abrasive behavior toward colleagues – did not substantially limit him in the major life activities of working or interacting with others. Before the amendments to the ADA, this decision might not have been noteworthy.  Given the far more expansive interpretation of "disability" under the 2008 ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), however, the Weaving case assumes the aura of a "Man Bites Dog" story by resisting the tendency of courts to err on the side of finding threshold protection under the ADAAA.

ADAAA Trends

The ADAAA was intended to turn back a series of U.S. Supreme Court and appellate court decisions restricting the scope of persons who had a "disability" under the ADA.  Broadly, the ADAAA tells courts that "[t]he definition of disability shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals" under the ADA, "to the maximum extent permitted by the terms" of the ADA.2  The ADAAA changed, among other things, the interpretation of "disability" by calling for a more expansive interpretation of when a physical or mental impairment "substantially limits" a "major life activity" and therefore qualifies as a disability. 

Since the ADAAA, the overall number of ADA charges before the EEOC and proportion of ADA charges within the EEOC (in relation to other anti-discrimination laws) have increased.3  The highest number of lawsuits filed by the EEOC in 2013 involved disability discrimination claims, and ADA cases enjoy high priority under the EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan.4  Predictably, under the ADAAA, courts have granted far fewer summary judgment rulings for employers because the plaintiff lacked standing as a covered individual with a "disability."5  More cases focus on the "merits:" whether the plaintiff was treated differently, whether the plaintiff was "qualified" (able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation), and whether the employer and employee followed their respective reasonable accommodation obligations.

The Weaving case takes on significance against the backdrop of these trends.

Facts and Background in Weaving: Good Cop, Bad Cop?

The plaintiff in Weaving was diagnosed with ADHD as a child, but initially believed that he had outgrown the condition as an adult.  Over his employment history as a police officer and investigator, he received mixed reviews: sometimes described as aloof and abrasive, but also rated as helpful, competent and hard working.  He joined the Hillsboro, Oregon Police Department (HPD) in 2006.  While at the HPD, the plaintiff had some interpersonal difficulties with other officers and subordinates, who complained about his acerbic, sarcastic, patronizing and sometimes demeaning behavior.  The HPD placed him on paid administrative leave in 2009 (after the ADAAA went into effect) pending the investigation of a subordinate's complaint alleging inappropriately harsh and bullying treatment by the plaintiff.  During this leave period, the plaintiff sought an after-the-fact evaluation by a mental health professional, who concluded that some of his interpersonal difficulties and lack of empathy for others were attributable to his continuing ADHD.  The plaintiff advised the HPD of his condition and asked for accommodations, including reinstatement and the opportunity to improve in his dealings with others.  Shortly thereafter, the HPD concluded its investigation, and found that the plaintiff "fostered a hostile work environment for his subordinates and peers," was "tyrannical, unapproachable, non-communicative, belittling, demeaning, threatening, intimidating, arrogant and vindictive."  It noted that he "does not possess adequate emotional intelligence to successfully work in a team environment, much less lead a team of police officers."  

The HPD terminated the plaintiff's employment, and the plaintiff sued under the ADA.  He claimed that he had a disability because his ADHD substantially limited his major life activities of working and interacting with others.  He further claimed that his discharge occurred after he revealed his ADHD condition and asked for a second chance.  A jury found that the plaintiff had a disability, and was terminated because of his disability.  The trial court awarded him over half a million dollars in compensatory, back pay, and front pay damages, plus attorney's fees.  HPD filed a motion for judgment based on insufficient evidence to support the verdict – which the trial court denied.  HPD then appealed.

The Appellate Court's Finding of No Disability

The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the jury could not have reasonably found that ADHD substantially limited the plaintiff's ability to work or interact with others.  It examined the EEOC's ADAAA regulations, which call for an individualized assessment of whether a condition is substantially limiting, and explain that:

An impairment is a disability . . . if it substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.  An impairment need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life activity in order to be considered substantially limiting.6

Even under this more relaxed standard, the court held that the plaintiff was not substantially limited in the major life activity of working either a range of jobs or in the plaintiff's chosen field.  It noted that he was able to succeed over his police officer career, but for the flaws in his interpersonal skills.  The court then visited the major life activity of "interacting with others."  Looking to pre-ADAAA precedent, the court recognized that "[m]ere trouble getting along with coworkers is not sufficient to show a substantial limitation."7  It contrasted cases involving plaintiffs who were barely functional in their interactions with others.  The plaintiff in Weaving, the court recognized, "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."  It held that his "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."  Cantankerous behavior does not equate to the required substantial limitation.

"To hold otherwise," the court reasoned, "would be to expose to potential ADA liability employers who take adverse employment actions against ill-tempered employees who create a hostile workplace environment for their colleagues."

Dissent Cries Foul

A lengthy dissent chided the majority for usurping the jury's role by reweighing the evidence and holding that the plaintiff "isn't disabled, he's just a jerk."  Noting that the plaintiff's weak "emotional intelligence" was both the driving force behind his discharge as well as a recognized symptom of ADHD, the dissent opined that the jury had sufficient evidence from which to conclude that the former officer had a "disability," and that its verdict therefore should not be disturbed.  His condition did not need to render him incapacitated in order to be substantially limited in the major life activity of interacting with others.  The evidence that his condition made him "hostile" and "unapproachable to his coworkers" was sufficient, according to the dissent.  It concluded that "[t]he law protects the disabled, not the likeable."

The Tempered Lesson That "Nostalgia Ain't What It Used to Be"

Blaming boorish behavior on a physical or mental impairment does not necessarily buy protection under the ADA.  Yet, the Weaving case does not mean that persons with ADHD will never have "disabilities" under the ADA, or that weak "emotional intelligence" need never be accommodated in appropriate circumstances.  It does not and will not return employers to pre-ADAAA days, when employers won a high percentage of cases by arguing that the plaintiff was not "substantially limited" in a major life activity, and therefore did not have a "disability."  Under the old ADA and now under the ADAAA, it is never a safe strategy to rely exclusively on the argument that a plaintiff does not have a "disability" – and therefore is not protected.  The Weaving decision does, however, underscore that this defense need not be abandoned altogether. 

Even under the ADAAA, not every physical or mental impairment amounts to a "disability."  In certain cases, arguing "no disability" may still be effective.  The most reliable defense, however, is full and fastidious compliance with ADA obligations.  Employers need to take the fluid accommodation process seriously when any employee raises the issue of disability and requests help.  When faced with ADA claims, employers should be fully prepared to argue that a plaintiff was treated equally, was no longer "qualified" for a job, or that accommodations would not have rendered the plaintiff "qualified."  Arguing "no disability" is now reserved for "extra credit."

Footnotes

1 Case No. 12-35726 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2014).

2 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A). 

See EEOC Charge Statistics FY 1997 Through FY 2013 at www.eeoc.gov.

See Annual Report on EEOC Developments: Fiscal Year 2013, Littler Report (Jan. 22, 2014) at 14, 28. 

5 Stephen F. Befort, An Empirical Examination of Case Outcomes Under the ADA Amendments Act, 70 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 2027 (2013).

6 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). 

Citing McAlindin v. County of San Diego, 192 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 1999).  

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Peter J. Petesch
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions