Yes, a ‘Cantankerous Jerk’ Can Be Fired

177030950 -- angry bossCan a person be lawfully terminated just for being a hard-core grump? Yes, says the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Matthew Weaving v. City of Hillsboro.

Weaving, an officer with the Hillsboro (Ore.) Police Department, was cited several times over a period of years for conflicts with fellow employees. A formal report — issued after a departmental investigation of an officer’s grievance about him — concluded he was “tyrannical, unapproachable, belittling, demeaning, threatening, intimidating, arrogant and vindictive.” (That’s quite a list.)

Based on the investigation, which also found Weaving had created a hostile work environment and did not possess the emotional intelligence to work in a team environment, he was fired Dec. 11, 2009, after three years with the force.

He sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming he had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and this condition caused his work conflicts and limited his ability to work or interact with others (a requirement of his job).

He contended his ADHD was a disability, which a district court upheld, but the appeals court reversed. (For everything you ever wanted to know about Weaving’s contention and how both courts viewed the ADHD/ADA issue, see both links above.)

Considering Weaving’s argument that ADHD falls under the ADA, I thought I’d share several earlier blog posts from some of us at HRE that delve into other expansions of, or attempts to expand, the definition of disability under the law.

This one, by David Shadovitz, delves into an appeals court ruling establishing that temporary impairments are now allowed under the law so long as they’re severe enough.

This post, by Mark McGraw, also gets into the temporary-condition allowance, in a different lawsuit, and mentions the American Medical Association’s new definition of obesity as a disease, adding exponentially to the ranks of the disabled.

And this from me a few years back highlights an informal letter issued by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission warning that requiring a high-school diploma from a job applicant might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act because the requirement could effectively screen out anyone unable to graduate because of a learning disability.

Meanwhile, in this latest case, employers have good reason to breathe a sigh of relief, says Myra Creighton, a partner with Atlanta-based Fisher & Phillips. The case, she told me, “upholds the principle that employers can enforce their employee-conduct standards governing personal interaction without worrying that the employee will blame his or her bad behavior on his or her disability.”

The ruling doesn’t, however, rule out ADHD as a disability if the plaintiff can prove the condition limits his or her ability to work.

As the Practical Law piece in the first link above puts it, the Ninth Circuit majority held “that the employee’s condition … did not rise to the level of disability [and argued] that a different holding … would open employers to potential liability each time they take an adverse-employment action concerning a hostile employee.”

The dissenting minority, however, it says, notes that “employers are [still] left in the complicated position of having to determine whether an individual, who has been properly diagnosed with ADHD, should be deemed disabled or just a jerk.”