## Facts

- Mickel G. Hoback became a Chattanooga police officer in July 2000 and later served a tour in Iraq before being honorably discharged.
- After returning to the police department in 2006, Hoback was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and received treatment through the Veterans Administration (VA).
- In April 2009, after a VA visit, a VA doctor sought to have Hoback involuntarily committed based on concern that he was suicidal.
- Hoback avoided involuntary commitment and voluntarily admitted himself for observation the same day; he was released the next day.
- The police chief learned of the attempted involuntary commitment, placed Hoback on administrative leave, and required a psychological fitness-for-duty evaluation before he could return to duty.
- A first psychologist examined Hoback in April and May 2009 and reported that Hoback was unfit to return and still needed intensive therapy; the assessment relied in part on violent disclosures Hoback had made during VA treatment.
- A second psychologist examined Hoback in June and July 2009 and reported that Hoback was fit to return, recommending a gradual reentry with supervision that would lessen over time.
- The chief decided to terminate Hoback based on the first psychologist’s report and did not credit the second report because he believed Hoback posed a safety risk given the essential functions of armed police work.
- Hoback sued Chattanooga under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), asserting that the City terminated him because it regarded him as disabled due to PTSD.
- The case proceeded to a jury verdict for Hoback. The City then sought post-trial relief, arguing the evidence was insufficient and that the City’s “direct threat” theory required judgment in its favor; it also challenged the damages award.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported a finding that Chattanooga terminated Hoback because it regarded him as disabled, and that Hoback was a qualified individual able to perform the job’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation.
2. Whether Chattanooga proved, as a matter of law, that Hoback posed a “direct threat” that justified termination.
3. Whether the damages award (including front pay) should be set aside or reduced through post-trial relief.

## Decision

- The court denied Chattanooga’s post-trial request to overturn the liability finding, concluding the record permitted a reasonable factfinder to determine Hoback was terminated because the City perceived him as disabled.
- The court declined to grant judgment to the City on the ADA direct-threat defense, reasoning that the defense depended on a fact-intensive, individualized assessment and that the competing psychological opinions created questions for the factfinder.
- The court rejected the City’s attack on the damages award, leaving the verdict intact, including the award of front pay.

## Legal Principles

- Post-trial relief overturning a verdict is inappropriate where, viewing the evidence in the nonmovant’s favor, a reasonable jury could reach the challenged findings.
- An ADA “regarded as” claim may be established when an employer takes adverse action because it perceives an employee to have a physical or mental impairment; the plaintiff must still show he was qualified to perform the job’s essential functions, with or without reasonable accommodation.
- The ADA’s “direct threat” defense requires an individualized assessment based on reasonable medical judgment and objective evidence, focused on the employee’s actual ability to perform the job safely.
- Where medical evidence is disputed—such as conflicting fitness-for-duty evaluations—the direct-threat question generally cannot be resolved as a matter of law.
- Front pay is an equitable remedy that may be awarded when reinstatement is not feasible; the amount must be supported by evidence rather than speculation.

## Conclusion

In *Hoback v. Chattanooga*, the court refused to disturb a jury’s ADA “regarded as” verdict arising from the City’s termination of a police officer after PTSD-related treatment and conflicting psychological evaluations, concluding that the City’s direct-threat argument and its challenges to the damages award did not justify post-trial relief.


Hoback v. Chattanooga, 2012 WL 3834828 (2012)