Appellate court reinstates federal discrimination lawsuit against Pittsburgh police

The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday reinstated a lawsuit filed by a candidate for the Pittsburgh police who says he was not hired for the job because he has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Christopher Gibbs filed a discrimination complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act against the city in November 2018.

He claimed that when he went through the psychological screening process, two of three psychologists recommended he not be hired because of his ADHD, even though he said he has the condition under control.

Gibbs, who said he had a history “of youthful misbehavior” also claimed in his suit that the city hired other officers with similar histories who did not have ADHD.

In his complaint, Gibbs said he was ranked No. 14 of 550 candidates after his written test and was given a conditional job offer. However, no final offer was made following the psychological exams.

Instead, he alleged the psychologists were biased and rejected him once they learned of his ADHD.

Gibbs noted in his complaint that five other police departments have hired him and that he never misbehaved as an officer or in eight years serving in the Marine Corps.

“When Mr. Gibbs’ conditional offer was revoked, he was not provided any information concerning its revocation except that he was told he failed the psychological component of the offer and therefore a final determination was made that he would not be hired,” the complaint said. “No reasons were provided to Mr. Gibbs as to why he was deemed psychologically unfit for a police officer position with the PBP.”

The complaint went on to say that the city took no steps to determine if Gibbs’ ADHD interfereed with police duties or if the city could provide reasonable accommodations for his disability.

Attorneys for Pittsburgh filed a motion to dismiss Gibbs’ claim. U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti granted the dismissal. She said that he was not qualified to be a Pittsburgh police officer because he did not pass the required psychological test.

But, in an eight-page, precedential opinion, the Third Circuit reversed her.

“Governments have a right to ensure that their policemen are mentally fit,” wrote Judge Stephanos Bibas. “But they may not use psychological testing as a cover to discriminate.”

Maggie Coleman, who represents Gibbs, said that as a precedential opinion, its findings must be followed by federal courts throughout the Third Circuit.

“This is an exceptionally clear, concise and well-written opinion,” she said. “It helps protect all job applicants from discrimination. Nobody should be turned away from a job based on wrongheaded assumptions about their physical or mental abilities.”

The case will now return to district court for the parties to engage in discovery.