The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a verdict for a plaintiff police officer on his claim that his employer terminated his employment based on his disability. The court disagreed that the plaintiff had a disability. One jurist summarized the decision as: "[He] isn't disabled, he's just a jerk."

Matthew Weaving, a police officer in Oregon for 14 years, worked for the Beaverton Police Department from 1995 to 2004. He was criticized for being abrasive, aggressively outspoken, disgruntled and intimidating.

At one point, he was removed from a special assignment because of personality conflicts with co-workers. When he worked on an interagency task force with the FBI, a federal agent sent a written complaint to Weaving's supervisor that raised his communication problems and hyper-aggressive manner of interaction.

Weaving subsequently left the Beaverton Police Department, and the Hillsborough Police Department hired him. There, his interpersonal conflicts with others continued. As a sergeant, numerous complaints were made about the manner in which he communicated. Weaving once taunted a fellow co-worker in email, showing he believed that the co-worker was a lightweight who could not keep up with the amount of work he was able to carry.

After Weaving verbally berated another officer on an open radio call, the Hillsborough Police Department initiated a formal investigation. During the investigation, Weaving provided a doctor's note that he had attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) and requested the police department to allow him to continue working while he sought treatment for his condition, which he claimed caused his interpersonal conflicts.

The investigative report ultimately concluded that Weaving was "tyrannical, unapproachable, belittling, demeaning, threatening, intimidating, arrogant and vindictive." The city denied his request and subsequently terminated his employment, concluding that he lacked the requisite emotional intelligence to work in a team environment.

Weaving subsequently filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against the City of Hillsborough, claiming that he had ADHD and should have been accommodated. At trial, a jury concluded in favor of Weaving and awarded Weaving $775,000 in damages. The city appealed, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the jury's verdict and entered judgment to the city.

The Court of Appeals acknowledged that Weaving was a skilled police officer. Despite his difficulties with his interpersonal interactions, the appellate court stated that Weaving was not substantially limited in his ability to interact with others, noting a difference between the ability to interact with others and the ability to get along with others.

The Court determined that every "cantankerous person will not be deemed disabled," particularly if there is evidence, such as in Weaving's case, that the person has the ability to and does engage in normal social interactions. In Weaving's case, the evidence showed he interacted appropriately with supervisors and the public.

Certainly, employers are quite happy to see that everything is not a disability, according to the ADA Amendments Act. As far as more practical implications, the decision stands for the idea that employers are permitted to enforce their conduct and behavioral standards as they concern interpersonal interactions between co-workers.

Thus, when employees are behaving badly, an employer's first instinct should not be to do a medical inquiry to determine whether the employee has a disability. Rather, employers should address poor behavior as just that — bad behavior in the workplace.

Employers' job descriptions should state that an essential function, particularly in jobs that require team work, is the ability to get along with others and to interact positively with them. And employers' handbooks should prohibit rude, ill-mannered behavior and written communications with co-workers.

Finally, employee evaluations should specifically address the manner in which a co-worker interacts with his co-workers, the public or customers. If an employee cannot manage his conduct, this case establishes an employer is well within its rights to discipline an employee for such misconduct and/or alternately terminate him for his interpersonal shortcomings.

If, however, an employee divulges to you at a counseling concerning such misconduct that the misconduct or ill-mannered behavior is caused by a disability, do not simply ignore the employee's statements. Certainly, you do not have to reverse the discipline you are currently administering. Moving forward, however, you may be required to provide an accommodation that enables the employee to meet the conduct or behavioral standard.

You will need to engage in the interactive process to determine whether such an accommodation is viable. If not, you may proceed to discipline the employee.