Matthew Weaving v. City of Hillsboro
763 F.3d 1106
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Weaving, an HPD employee from 2006–2009, was terminated for recurring interpersonal problems linked to ADHD.
- He claimed ADHD substantially limited working and interacting with others under the ADA.
- Trial produced a verdict that he was disabled and fired because of disability; City sought judgment as a matter of law and a new-trial on jury instructions.
- Evidence showed childhood ADHD history, later adult diagnosis, and mixed professional performance including promotion to sergeant.
- HPD conducted investigations and medical evaluations; two doctors found him fit for duty while the City argued no substantial limitation.
- The district court denied post-trial motions; the Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment as a matter of law on the disability finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ADHD substantially limit working under the ADA? | Weaving’s ADHD limited work capacity compared to most people. | ADHD did not substantially limit work; he remained a capable officer. | No substantial limitation to working (major life activity) |
| Does ADHD substantially limit interacting with others under the ADA? | Weaving’s ADHD caused regular severe interpersonal problems. | Interacting with others not substantially limited; can engage normally. | No substantial limitation; cannot satisfy McAlindin standard under the ADA |
| Is the jury’s disability verdict supported by substantial evidence? | Medical testimony showed ADHD causing emotional/communication deficits. | Record lacked evidence that ADHD substantially limited major life activities. | Not supported; district court erred in denying judgment as a matter of law |
| Which standard governs 'interacting with others' in this circuit post-ADAAA? | McAlindin standard should apply to liability for interacting with others. | Jacques standard may be adopted; fosters broader interpretation. | McAlindin standard controls; Jacques criticized in majority opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- McAlindin v. County of San Diego, 192 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 1999) (interacting with others can be a major life activity; need severe, regular problems)
- Head v. Glacier Northwest, Inc., 413 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2005) (limited interactions may suffice to show disability where severe)
- Jacques v. DiMarzio, Inc., 386 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2004) (rejects Ninth Circuit’s McAlindin framework as workable standard)
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) (pre-ADAAA standard for substantial limitation in working)