MENUMENU
  • FREE RESOURCES
  • PREMIUM CONTENT
        • SEE MORE
          PREMIUM RESOURCES
  • HR DEEP DIVES
        • Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resources for HR Professionals
          Employment Law
          Labor Law Posting Requirements: Everything You Need to Know
          Recruiting
          businesswoman selecting future employees on digital interfaces
          Recruiting Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
          Performance Management
          vector image of young female making star rating
          Performance Review Resources
          Employment Law
          Understanding Equal Employment Opportunity and the EEOC
          Recruiting
          Onboarding Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
  • CORONAVIRUS & HR

  • LOGIN
  • SIGN UP FREE

HR Morning

MENUMENU
  • FREE RESOURCES
  • PREMIUM CONTENT
        • SEE MORE
          PREMIUM RESOURCES
  • HR DEEP DIVES
        • Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resources for HR Professionals
          Employment Law
          Labor Law Posting Requirements: Everything You Need to Know
          Recruiting
          businesswoman selecting future employees on digital interfaces
          Recruiting Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
          Performance Management
          vector image of young female making star rating
          Performance Review Resources
          Employment Law
          Understanding Equal Employment Opportunity and the EEOC
          Recruiting
          Onboarding Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
  • CORONAVIRUS & HR
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • Talent Management
  • Performance Management
  • HR Technology
  • More
    • Leadership & Strategy
    • Compensation
    • Staff Administration
    • Policy & Procedures
    • Wellness
    • Staff Departure
    • Employee Services
    • Work Location
    • HR Career & Self-Care
    • Health Care
    • Retirement Plans

Being a jerk isn't an ADA-qualifying disability, court rules

Christian Schappel
by Christian Schappel
October 15, 2014
5 minute read
  • SHARE ON

Employers can breathe a sigh of relief. Common sense just won the day in a U.S. appeals court.

In overturning a jury’s verdict, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit just ruled that being a “cantankerous” person doesn’t render one disabled and entitled to employee protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
It’s a little troubling the case had to reach the appeals stage. But employers can take solace in the fact that a practical decision was eventually rendered that doesn’t move them closer to allowing the inmates to run the asylum.

Police officer fired

Matthew Weaving was a police officer for the City of Hillsboro, OR. He was employed there for more than two years before he was eventually terminated because of severe interpersonal problems between himself and his co-workers.
Apparently, Weaving had a problem working with peers and subordinates, but — suspiciously enough — not with his superiors or the general public.
One lieutenant wrote that Weaving had created and fostered a hostile work environment for his subordinates and peers.
As an example of his behavior with subordinates, which some called “intimidating” and “demeaning,” the court presented an email that Weaving wrote in response to a question about his decision to have two cars towed.
Weaving’s email read:

I’ll respond to the second part of your inquisitive email [the part about the two cars] with a metaphorical analogy. Envision a swimming pool with a deep end and a shallow end separated by a floating rope. . . .
There are many more potential hazards in the deep end and a person would be foolish to venture there without the technical expertise, stamina and initiative to keep from drowning. There are countless people who are good swimmers but still remain in the shallow end for fear of the potential danger the deep end harbors. Still, there are others who negligently and recklessly venture to the deep end without any technical proficiency and tragically drown. My recommendation to you is that you remain in the shallow end where you can splash around with the kids.
What really upsets me about your inquiry is not the simple fact that you question my judgment and knowledge but the manner in which you have done so. If you have any desire to discuss this incident further or any other incident please do not do so in a public record email, come and find me any day of the week! I’m easy to locate, I’m in the deep end so bring your water wings!

Weaving suffered from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which he claimed was the root cause of the interpersonal problems.
As a result, Weaving sued the city following his termination, claiming Hillsboro had discharged him because of his disability in violation of the ADA.
As you know, an employee is considered disabled if he or she has a condition that limits a major life activity. Well, Weaving claimed his ADHD limited his ability to engage in the major life activity of working and interacting with others.
Weaving’s case went before a district court and a jury, which sided with him. He was awarded $770,000.
The city appealed.

Ruling reversed

The appeals court, however, saw things much differently.
In reversing the jury’s verdict, it said that a reasonable jury couldn’t have found that Weaving’s ADHD substantially limited his ability to work or interact with others.
In other words, Weaving wasn’t a disabled individual who qualified for the ADA’s protections.
The appeals court said there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that Weaving’s ADHD affected his ability to work. The court based it’s decision on two main points:

  • Weaving had been recognized for his technical competence as a police officer, and
  • He was able to work with his superiors and the public without problems.

These two findings, according to the appeals court, provided enough evidence to show that Weaving’s ADHD didn’t affect his ability to work.
In remanding the case back to district court, the appeals court said:

… a “cantankerous person” who has “[m]ere trouble getting along with coworkers” is not disabled under the ADA.

The court then cited Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforcement guidance, which said:

Some unfriendliness with coworkers or a supervisor would not, standing along, be sufficient to establish a substantial limitation in interacting with others.

And finally, the court added:

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.

Welcome relief for employers

Employers are no doubt singing the praises of the appeals court in this case, as upholding the jury’s verdict would’ve put them in a difficult spot when it comes to so-called “cantankerous” employees.
The appeals court’s decision at least prevented the bar from being lowered when it comes to what employees would have to do to establish a substantial limitation that would trigger ADA protections.
Still, this case doesn’t give employers the green light to push office jerks out the door. Employers are still obligated to engage in the interactive process when an employee has a known medical condition to see if a reasonable accommodation exists that would allow the person to perform the essential functions of his or her job.
Cite: Weaving v. City of Hillsboro

Get the latest from HRMorning in your inbox PLUS immediately access 10 FREE HR guides.

I WANT MY FREE GUIDES

Keep Up To Date with the Latest HR News

With HRMorning arriving in your inbox, you will never miss critical stories on labor laws, benefits, retention and onboarding strategies.

Sign up for a free HRMorning membership and get our newsletter!
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
HR Morning Logo
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linked In
  • ABOUT HRMORNING
  • ADVERTISE WITH US
  • WRITE FOR US
  • CONTACT
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • Talent Management
  • HR Technology
  • Performance Management
  • Leadership & Strategy
  • Compensation & Payroll
  • Policy & Culture
  • Staff Administration
  • Wellness & Safety
  • Staff Departure
  • Employee Services
  • Work Location
  • HR Career & Self-Care

HRMorning, part of the SuccessFuel Network, provides the latest HR and employment law news for HR professionals in the trenches of small-to-medium-sized businesses. Rather than simply regurgitating the day’s headlines, HRMorning delivers actionable insights, helping HR execs understand what HR trends mean to their business.

Privacy Policy Terms of Service
Copyright © 2021 SuccessFuel

WELCOME BACK!

Enter your username and password below to log in

Forget Your Username or Password?

Reset Password

Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.

Log In

During your free trial, you can cancel at any time with a single click on your “Account” page.  It’s that easy.

Why do we need your credit card for a free trial?

We ask for your credit card to allow your subscription to continue should you decide to keep your membership beyond the free trial period.  This prevents any interruption of content access.

Your card will not be charged at any point during your 21 day free trial
and you may cancel at any time during your free trial.

preloader