ADHD Diagnosis Not Sufficient for ADA Claim

  • Over 100 Years of Experience

    Our dedicated attorneys have a reputation for success.

    Meet Our Team
  • Our Awards Set Us Apart

    Learn about our distinguishing awards & how this benefits you.

    What It Means For You
  • Client Testimonials

    Many satisfied clients have used Schwartz Perry & Heller.

    What They Have to Say
  • Request Your Consultation

    Contact our firm today to learn how we can help you.

    Get Started Now

ADHD Diagnosis Not Sufficient for ADA Claim

Not every impairment is a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. And without a "disability" within the meaning of the ADA, there is no obligation to accommodate and there is no relief available for termination of employment based on a claim of disability discrimination. This was made clear by a recent 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals decision which held that a police officer with ADHD did not have a legally sufficient "disability" to justify a claim under the ADA. That is because, the court found, his "impairment" did not "substantially limit" the major life activities of working or interacting with others.

Matthew Weaving was diagnosed with ADHD when he was six years old. At twelve, he stopped taking medication, but had difficulty getting along with others during his teen and adult years. He joined the Beaverton, Oregon police force after passing all of his physical and mental exams. He did not disclose his ADHD diagnosis or prior medications, believing he was no longer afflicted. He stayed in Beaverton for about 10 years, but received much negative feedback about his personality conflicts.

He joined the Hillsboro, Oregon, police force in 2006. He disclosed his previous ADHD diagnosis and noted some of the personality conflicts that had plagued him. Hillsboro offered him provisional employment, subject to a medical evaluation. Weaving passed that evaluation, as well as another one when he applied for promotion to sergeant. His superiors noted he sometimes was perceived as arrogant or intimidating, but that he did his job well.

After a couple of incidents of conflict with his co-workers/ subordinates, the city placed Weaving on administrative leave. While on leave, Weaving came to the conclusion that ADHD might be the source of some of his troubles. A doctor agreed that his ADHD might cause him to interact roughly with co-workers, but that he could still be an "excellent" officer. Weaving told the City that he should be reinstated with "all reasonable accommodations," so that he might obtain treatment and improve his communications.

The city conducted an investigation, and found that Weaver had serious problems interacting with co-workers, and decided to discharge him. A jury found the city violated the ADA by firing Weaving and awarded him money damages, but not reinstatement. The Court of Appeals, reversed, finding that Weaving was not "substantially limited" in the major life activity of working.

Weaving also claimed substantial limitation in the major life activity of interacting with others. The Ninth Circuit recognizes that as a major life activity. But, reviewing its own and other courts' decisions, the court said that merely failing to "get along" is not the same as interacting.

It stated that "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. To hold otherwise 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."

The takeaway: A diagnosis of ADHD by itself will most likely not support an ADA claim. However, those who have a severe inability to relate to others (such as those who cannot relate to anyone, rather than just co-workers), would still be considered disabled under the court's standards. The crucial element is proving that the medical condition's impairment "substantially limits" one or more major life activities.

Comments

No Comments Posted

Contact Us

Schwartz Perry & Heller LLP
New York Employment Law Attorney
Located at: 3 Park Ave.,
27th Floor,

New York, NY 10016
View Map
Phone: (646) 490-0221
Local Phone: (212) 889-6565
Website:
© 2018 All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.