## Facts

- Matthew Weaving, a Hillsboro Police Department (HPD) sergeant, was diagnosed in childhood with what is now known as ADHD and claimed it caused long-running interpersonal problems.
- Before joining HPD, Weaving worked for another police department where evaluations described him as technically competent but sometimes abrasive, intimidating, and outspoken.
- After joining HPD in 2006 and later becoming a sergeant, Weaving developed serious conflicts with subordinates and peers.
- A departmental investigation concluded Weaving created and fostered a hostile work environment.
- HPD terminated Weaving in 2009, citing interpersonal and supervisory problems; Weaving claimed these behaviors were manifestations of ADHD.
- Weaving sued the City under the ADA; a jury found for Weaving on a general verdict, and the district court denied the City’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and alternative motion for a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence allowed a reasonable jury to find that Weaving’s ADHD substantially limited the major life activity of working under the pre-ADAAA ADA.
2. Whether the evidence allowed a reasonable jury to find that Weaving’s ADHD substantially limited the major life activity of interacting with others under the pre-ADAAA ADA.
3. If Weaving was not disabled as a matter of law, whether the City was entitled to JMOL notwithstanding the jury’s verdict.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment for Weaving and held the City was entitled to JMOL.
- The court held that, as a matter of law, Weaving did not prove his ADHD substantially limited his ability to work.
- The court held that, as a matter of law, Weaving did not prove his ADHD substantially limited his ability to interact with others, because the evidence showed workplace conflict rather than severe and pervasive inability to relate to people.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with entry of judgment for the City.

## Legal Principles

- Under the pre-ADAAA ADA, a plaintiff must show a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
- To show substantial limitation in the major life activity of working, the plaintiff must present evidence of limitation in a broad range or class of jobs, not merely problems in one position or workplace.
- “Interacting with others” may qualify as a major life activity, but a substantial limitation requires a severe, pervasive impairment in forming or maintaining social relationships, not merely being abrasive or having personality-based conflicts at work.
- Evidence of technical competence and successful work functioning can defeat a claim that an impairment substantially limits working.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit set aside a jury verdict for a police sergeant and held that ADHD-linked interpersonal conflict, without evidence of broad vocational limitation or severe and pervasive inability to interact with others, does not establish “disability” under the pre-ADAAA ADA, entitling the employer to judgment as a matter of law.


Weaving v. City of Hillsboro, 763 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2014)