On August 15, 2014, in Weaving v. City of Hillsboro, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment after a jury trial which found that a police officer with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) suffered from a disability under the ADA. Despite having the diagnosed condition of ADHD, the officer had a history of strong work performance and appropriate interaction with superiors. The Ninth Circuit held that the officer's ADHD was not a disability because it did not substantially limit his major life activities of working or interacting with others. (12-35726, (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2014).)

Matthew Weaving was diagnosed with ADHD as a child. He appeared to outgrow the condition, but had interpersonal problems throughout his teenage years. In 1995, Weaving joined the Beaverton Police Department (BPD). He passed mental and physical tests, and did not notify the BPD of his history with ADHD, as he thought it no longer affected him. Weaving encountered periodic personality conflicts at BPD, but performed well, being placed on interagency teams and an FBI task force.

In 2006, Weaving joined the Hillsboro Police Department (HPD). He disclosed his prior personal conflicts at BPD and his history of ADHD, noting that he did not believe it still affected him. Weaving received positive professional evaluations and was promoted to sergeant after passing a psychological leadership evaluation. However, Weaving continued to have personality conflicts with co-workers. In April 2009, Weaving was placed on administrative leave pending investigation of an officer's grievance filed in response to verbal criticism by Weaving. While on leave, it became apparent to Weaving that his problems may be the result of his ADHD. A psychologist diagnosed Weaving with adult ADHD. Weaving wrote a letter to the HPD noting the doctor's diagnosis and requesting necessary reasonable accommodations for his condition, including reinstatement.

In June 2009, the grievance investigation found that Weaving had created a hostile work environment and that he did not possess the emotional intelligence to work in a team environment. An independent medical evaluation deemed Weaving fit for duty. In November 2009, Weaving received a letter stating the HPD's intention to terminate his employment. After a hearing, Weaving was fired, effective December 11, 2009.

Weaving sued the City of Hillsboro under the ADA, alleging that:

The case was tried to a jury, which was instructed that Weaving was disabled if he had mental impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities, including:

The jury returned a verdict for Weaving, finding that he had proven he was disabled under the ADA, but that he had not proven that he was regarded as disabled under the ADA. The district court awarded Weaving back pay and front pay, but refused to reinstate him to the HPD. The city filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law based on insufficient evidence to support the verdict. The district court denied the motion. The city appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the city's motion for judgment as a matter of law, and remanded the case. The Ninth Circuit held that a jury could not reasonably have concluded that Weaving's ADHD substantially limited his ability to work or interact with others.

In reaching the conclusion that a jury could not reasonably have concluded that Weaving's ADHD substantially limited his ability to work, the Ninth Circuit found that:

In reaching the conclusion that a jury could not reasonably have concluded that Weaving's ADHD substantially limited his ability to interact with others, the Ninth Circuit found that:

The dissenting opinion asserts that the majority:

The dissent argues that the majority should have recognized Weaving's ADHD as substantially limiting his ability to interact with others because:

The dissent notes that since Weaving should have prevailed on his claim that ADHD substantially limited his ability to interact with others, it does not matter if he failed to establish that he also had a work impairment.

This decision may have significant effects on how employers deal with difficult employees concerning reasonable accommodation decisions, discipline or termination. The majority agreed with Ninth Circuit precedent that interaction with others is a major life activity that, if substantially limited, could provide evidence of a disability protected by the ADA. However, it limited the reach of what comes under the ADA's protection. The Ninth Circuit's holding that the employee's condition in this case did not rise to the level of disability is controversial, given that it reverses the decision of a jury and sidesteps the medical opinions provided.

In determining whether someone is substantially limited in interacting with others, the majority draws a line between those people who have an inability to engage in normal social interactions and those who just do not get along with co-workers. The majority argued that a different holding in this case would open employers to potential liability each time they take an adverse employment action concerning a hostile employee. As the dissent notes, employers are 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.