PITTSBURGH – A panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has reinstated a lawsuit against the City of Pittsburgh, brought by a man who claimed he was denied a position with the city’s police department because he suffered from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
A March 3 ruling from Third Circuit judges L. Felipe Restrepo, Stephanos Bibas and David J. Porter re-opened a matter from plaintiff Christopher Gibbs against the City of Pittsburgh.
Gibbs had applied to be a Pittsburgh policeman, where he aced the written test and received a conditional job offer. Subsequent to the offer, he had to “be personally examined by a Pennsylvania licensed psychologist and found to be psychologically capable of exercising appropriate judgment or restraint in performing the duties of a police officer.”
Among the three psychologists who interviewed him, two said he was unfit to serve and as a result, Gibbs never received a final offer of employment.
In his lawsuit, Gibbs alleged that the psychologists were biased – claiming that once they learned of his ADHD diagnosis, they reflexively rejected him, yet they never explored whether his ADHD would interfere with the job.
“If they had, he says, they would have learned that his ADHD was under control: Five other police departments have found him mentally fit and hired him. He has never misbehaved as a police officer or as a Marine. And he passed a written test that he claims was ‘the best available objective psychological assessment of [his] mental health,” Bibas stated.
“Gibbs misbehaved as a child, before he was treated for ADHD. But he claims that Pittsburgh hired other applicants with similar childhood issues not caused by ADHD. So he believes he was denied the job based on anti-ADHD bias.”
Gibbs sued Pittsburgh under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, however, the District Court granted Pittsburgh’s motion to dismiss.
“It held that he was not qualified to be a Pittsburgh policeman because “passing [the psychological test] was a ‘prerequisite,’ regardless of how able Gibbs was to perform the essential functions of the job,” Bibas said.
“The court suggested that he ‘might be able to state a viable claim’ by pleading ‘bias in the statutorily-required psychological examination.’ But he had not done that, it ruled; he had alleged only that the ‘psychologists, not the City,’ were biased.”
Gibbs timely appealed and claimed that he was qualified to be a policeman because five other police departments hired him, and even Pittsburgh made him a conditional job offer – but Pittsburgh responded that Gibbs lacked one qualification: Passing the psychological test.
“That response misses the point. Gibbs claims that he failed the test because the psychologists were biased. When a plaintiff claims that job criteria were applied in a discriminatory way, of course he does not need to satisfy those criteria to bring a discrimination claim,” Bibas said.
Bibas added that Gibbs had in fact plausibly alleged that he was disabled, a qualified candidate and finally, was discriminated against.
“He claims that once the psychologists learned that he had ADHD, they fixated on his childhood misbehavior without considering whether it was currently under control. He also claims that his ADHD was under control and that five other police departments thought so,” Bibas stated.
“And he claims that Pittsburgh hired other policemen who had likewise misbehaved as children but did not have ADHD. He has thus explained why he thinks he suffered discrimination. If his allegations are true, there is a reasonable chance that discovery will unearth more evidence of it. So he has plausibly stated a claim.”
According to Bibas, the District Court thought that Gibbs had to allege that Pittsburgh itself was biased, not just the psychologists that it had hired. Not only did the City of Pittsburgh disavow that reasoning, but the Third Circuit rejected it as well.
“The District Court also said that state law required Pittsburgh to screen out Gibbs. The parties debate whether that is true, but it makes no difference. Under the Supremacy Clause, an employer may not shield itself from federal antidiscrimination liability just by saying that it was trying to follow state law,” Bibas stated.
“Pittsburgh objects that its psychologists did not discriminate against Gibbs. That may be so. But Gibbs has plausibly alleged that they did, and he deserves a chance to prove it. We will reverse the District Court’s dismissal and remand to allow discovery.”
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 20-1414
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:18-cv-01563
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com