## Facts

- In 2000, Michael (Mickel G.) Hoback was hired by the City of Chattanooga as a police officer.
- Hoback later enlisted in the U.S. military and served in Iraq for more than a year.
- After returning, the Veterans Administration (VA) diagnosed Hoback with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and he returned to police work in 2005.
- In 2009, during VA treatment, Hoback exaggerated the extent of his suicidal thoughts in an effort to obtain greater VA disability benefits.
- A VA doctor attempted to have Hoback involuntarily committed; Hoback spent one night in the hospital and was released the next day.
- After learning about the attempted commitment, the City placed Hoback on administrative leave and required a fitness-for-duty psychological evaluation.
- The City’s psychologist concluded Hoback could not safely perform police duties because of his PTSD.
- The City told Hoback to take leave or apply for a different City job.
- Hoback obtained a second psychological opinion concluding he could return to police work if monitored.
- The City terminated Hoback’s employment.
- Hoback later obtained a third evaluation concluding his PTSD was in remission, he was fit for duty, and his earlier suicidal statements were made to obtain more VA benefits rather than reflecting a current intent to self-harm.
- Hoback sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act; a jury awarded back pay, front pay, and emotional-distress damages.
- The district court reduced the back-pay award in part but otherwise left the verdict and damages in place; the City appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Hoback was a “qualified individual” under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, despite PTSD, the VA suicidal-ideation episode, and the City’s fitness-for-duty evaluation.
2. Whether Hoback’s VA disability benefits and his false or exaggerated statements to the VA required judgment for the City as a matter of law, or instead were for the jury to weigh against other evidence of job capability.
3. Whether the district court erred in denying the City’s dispositive motions and abused its discretion in the post-trial damages rulings, including the award of front pay.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for Hoback.
- The court held that, viewing the record in the light most favorable to Hoback, a reasonable jury could find he was qualified to perform the essential functions of a police officer with or without reasonable accommodation, based on competing psychological opinions and other trial evidence.
- The court rejected the City’s argument that Hoback’s VA disability benefits and benefit-seeking statements barred the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims as a matter of law; those facts went to credibility and weight, which the jury could resolve.
- The court upheld the district court’s post-trial rulings on damages, including the front-pay award, and left intact the district court’s partial reduction of back pay.

## Legal Principles

- ADA and Rehabilitation Act employment claims require proof that the plaintiff is disabled (or regarded as disabled), is otherwise qualified to perform the job’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, and suffered an adverse action because of disability.
- On review of the denial of judgment as a matter of law, the appellate court does not reweigh evidence; if reasonable jurors could differ, the verdict stands.
- Statements made in pursuit of disability benefits, and receipt of those benefits, do not automatically defeat an ADA or Rehabilitation Act claim; the plaintiff may still show an ability to work under the statutes’ standards, and the jury may assess any inconsistency.
- When medical opinions conflict about an employee’s fitness for duty, especially with disputed motives and credibility questions, that conflict typically presents a fact question for the jury rather than a basis for judgment as a matter of law.
- Front pay is an equitable remedy generally reviewed for abuse of discretion; a district court may award front pay when reinstatement is not ordered and the record supports a future wage-loss estimate.

## Conclusion

In Hoback v. City of Chattanooga, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict and damages award for a Chattanooga police officer with PTSD, holding that the City was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on Hoback’s VA disability benefits or his exaggerated VA statements, and that the evidence and the district court’s damages rulings—including front pay—supported the judgment.


Hoback v. City of Chattanooga, 2013 WL 6698042 (2013)