Weaving v. City of Hillsboro

Matthew Weaving (plaintiff) worked as a police officer for the Hillsboro Police Department (HPD) in the City of Hillsboro (defendant) for about three years until his termination due to unacceptable interpersonal communication. Weaving had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as a child and encountered interpersonal problems throughout the rest of his life due to his condition (though he believed he had outgrown it during adolescence). Prior to joining HPD, Weaving had worked for another police department for a number of years with some degree of success despite interpersonal-communication problems. Weaving informed HPD of his history of ADHD. Throughout his career, Weaving passed multiple psychological evaluations, indicating he was fit for employment as a police officer. After about a year of generally positive performance, Weaving was promoted to sergeant at HPD. Weaving began to receive negative feedback regarding his communication. Subordinates perceived Weaving as demeaning and arrogant. Eventually, Weaving was suspended for his response to an incident involving a subordinate. While suspended, Weaving sought treatment for his ADHD. His psychologist concluded that his communication issues were caused by ADHD and that he could improve with treatment. HPD commenced a hearing to determine whether it should terminate Weaving after an investigation found that Weaving repeatedly demonstrated unacceptable interpersonal communication. Weaving was terminated from HPD. Weaving sued the city under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging that the city fired him because of his impairment and the fact that he was regarded as disabled. After trial, a jury found that Weaving was disabled and that the city terminated him because of it. Weaving was awarded a six-figure sum. The city filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial, which the district court denied. The city appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.