A federal appeals court overturned a lower court and reinstated a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by a Pittsburgh police prosecutor who dismissed him for the position of psychologist because of his diagnosis of hyperactivity disorder with attention deficit disorder. The written test to become a Pittsburgh police officer and received a conditional job offer, according to Wednesday's decision by the third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pittsburgh in Christopher Gibbs v City of Pittsburgh.
But he never got a job offer because two of the three psychologists who interviewed him said he was unfit to serve, they said. Mr Gibbs claimed that the psychologists were biased and rejected him reflexively because of his ADHD diagnosis.
He said that five other police departments thought he was mentally fit and had hired him, and he had never behaved badly as a police officer or as a Marine. He said he had behaved like a child before being treated for ADHD and that Pittsburgh had hired other applicants with similar childhood problems that were not caused by ADHD.
Mr. Gibbs sued Pittsburgh under the Disability Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh granted the city's summary judgment dismissing the case, which was overturned by a unanimous panel of three judges. But they may not use psychological tests as a cover to discriminate, they say.
Mr. Gibbs has claimed that he was qualified for the job. The city says he lacked a qualification by passing the psychological test, but "That answer misses the point," the decision said.
"Gibbs claims that he failed the test because the psychologists were biased. When a plaintiff claims that job criteria were applied in a discriminatory manner, he obviously does not have to meet those criteria to bring a claim for discrimination."
In order to reasonably claiming that he suffered discrimination, Mr Gibbs "does not need detailed evidence," but only needs to "raise the reasonable expectation that the discovery will reveal evidence of discriminatory motives," the verdict said in an earlier case.
"Gibbs has done so. He claims that when the psychologists found out he had ADHD, they fixed on his childhood bad behavior without considering whether it was currently under control kontroll. Decisive said, by reversing the district court's dismissal and referring the case back.
"This is an exceptionally clear, concise and well-written statement," said Margaret S. Coleman, a lawyer at Timothy P's law firm. O & # 39; Brien of Pittsburgh, who had argued the case before the Board of Appeal, in a statement.
"The fact that it takes precedence means that it not only helps Mr Gibbs. It helps protect all jobseekers from discrimination. No one should be fired from a job based on assumptions about faulty physical or mental abilities."
Pittsburgh attorneys did not respond to a request for comment
Last month, a federal appeals court overturned a lower court and reinstated it. remission fee submitted for a rehabilitation facility's former laundry worker who suffered from an anxiety disorder.