Rich Meneghello, The Daily Record Newswire
A Hillsboro, Oregon, police officer who was fired for a series of interpersonal conflicts recently received some bad news from a federal appeals court. Although a jury had agreed with Matthew Weaving's claim that he was fired for being disabled and should have been accommodated for his Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), the appeals court reversed the decision and handed his employer a victory. Here's what you need to know about this case:
Weaving was a police officer in Oregon for 14 years, and his tenure was littered with conflicts with co-workers. When he worked for the Beaverton Police Department from 1995 to 2004, he was criticized for being abrasive, forcefully outspoken, disgruntled and intimidating, and was even removed from a special assignment because of personality conflicts with co-workers. When he worked on an interagency task force with the FBI, a federal agent wrote a complaint letter to Weaving's bosses addressing his communication problems and overly aggressive style.
Weaving left the BPD in 2004 and joined the Hillsboro Police Department, but the personality conflicts continued. Although he was promoted to sergeant in 2007 because of his technical skills as an officer, he received numerous complaints regarding his communication style.
In 2008, a fellow sergeant complained that Weaving was dumping too much work on him. Weaving responded by sending him an email where he described the workplace like a swimming pool with a deep end and a shallow end separated by a floating rope, and recommended to his co-worker that he "remain in the shallow end where you can splash around with the kids." Weaving concluded the email by taunting the co-worker, saying he knew where he could find Weaving if he wanted to talk further: "I'm easy to locate. I'm in the deep end, so bring your water wings!"
In 2009, a formal investigation into Weaving's behavior began after he verbally berated another officer over the open radio for all to hear; the resulting report concluded that Weaving was "tyrannical, unapproachable, belittling, demeaning, threatening, intimidating, arrogant and vindictive." (Besides that, he was a great guy.) The city of Hillsboro terminated Weaving's employment after receiving the report, determining that he did not possess adequate emotional intelligence to successfully work in a team environment.
Weaving filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against the city, claiming that he had been diagnosed with ADHD and should have been accommodated. During the investigation into Weaving's behavior, he provided a doctor's note confirming the diagnosis and requesting that he be allowed to continue working while he underwent treatment for his communication problems. He said that he had suffered from ADHD since childhood and just recently realized it might have been causing his interpersonal issues.
Because that request was denied, Weaving sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A federal jury ruled in Weaving's favor and awarded him more than $775,000 in damages. The city appealed, and a few weeks ago the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (it hears appeals for most districts in the West, including Oregon, Washington and California) overturned the jury's decision and awarded a victory to the employer.
The appeals court said that Weaving wasn't considered "disabled" under the ADA and didn't need to be accommodated; therefore he had no claim. It pointed out that Weaving was, in many ways, a skilled police officer. Although he may have had many issues getting along with others, the appeals court said that Weaving was not substantially limited in his ability to interact with others (as opposed to, say, someone with severe panic attacks who is housebound most of the day and barely functional as a result).
The court concluded by saying that every "cantankerous person" will not be deemed to be disabled, especially if there is proof that the person can engage in normal social interactions. One judge in summary said, "Weaving isn't disabled; he's just a jerk."
It is widely expected that this case will be appealed up the chain, maybe even to the U.S. Supreme Court. Until then, what can employers take from this decision?
First and foremost, there is good news whenever a court decides that a plaintiff isn't disabled under the meaning of the ADA. Ever since the law was amended very liberally in 2008, it has been very difficult for employers to win these kinds of cases.
Most importantly, this case upholds the principle that employers can enforce their employee standards as they relate to personal interactions, and not worry that an employee is going to blame their rudeness on their disability. Employers should draw very bright lines in their written policies prohibiting uncivil behavior and ill-mannered communications, and then train their managers to apply these rules consistently.
Employees should be provided with annual evaluations that honestly address co-worker interactions and constructively criticize problem areas while providing a road map for improvement. If things don't get better, this case should provide some comfort in knowing that discipline (including termination) can be warranted if it goes too far.
If an employee tells the employer that he or she has a medical condition that may be interfering with his or her ability to remain polite and professional, the employer shouldn't simply ignore it. Engagement in an interactive process with the employee may be worthwhile to see the evidence and get specific feedback on what is being requested.
As this case demonstrates, an employer won't necessarily have to actually accommodate the employee depending on the situation, but it is possible that he or she will present possible solutions that make sense and can be implemented for a trial period. If it turns out the employee actually is disabled, the employer might have a duty to work with him or her to fashion a reasonable solution. But if it turns out the employee is just a jerk, this case could be the defense needed to fire the person.
-----
Rich Meneghello is a partner in the Portland office of Fisher & Phillips LLP, which is dedicated to representing the interests of management. Contact him at or 503-205-8044, or follow him on Twitter @pdxLaborLawyer.
Published: Fri, Sep 05, 2014
