By Jim Cline and Sam Hagshenas
In Tiller v. City of Jackson, the Court ruled against a former police officer who alleged Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) violations and discharge due to his workplace related PTSD. The Court ruled that the former officer was unable to prove that he would ever be able to perform his position even with accommodations, and that he did not provide sufficient evidence to find discrimination.
Terrence Tiller was a Sergeant in the Patrol Division of the Jackson Police Department. In April 2020, Officer Tiller fatally shot a suspect while responding to a burglary in progress. Following this incident, Tiller was put on a mandatory period of paid administrative leave, pending the results of an investigation. After a mandated psychological evaluation, Tiller was deemed unfit for duty.
Tiller was eventually cleared for duty in November 2020 and attempted to return to work but suffered from emotional dysregulation and was returned to administrative leave. Tiller was twice interviewed by a psychiatrist after this incident, who found him unfit for duty with symptoms of PTSD. Tiller eventually received a pretermination letter for job abandonment, stating that he failed to check in as required while on leave. Tiller communicated that his medications caused him to “sleep like a zombie,” and was reinstated on the condition that he provided a medical report allowing him to return to full-duty status. After being unable to provide this report, Tiller was terminated.
Tiller sued under the ADA and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, arguing that he offered direct evidence of discrimination, and was treated less favorably than a non-disabled employee in the department.
The City of Jacksonville moved for summary judgment, alleging that Tiller could not provide evidence to sustain his claims, and that he was not entitled to infinite leave as an accommodation for his mental disability. The city noted that they allowed Tiller to remain on paid leave for over two years, reinstated him to paid leave after he was unable to work, and granted him additional time to produce required medical documentation to return to duty.
The Court ruled in favor of the City, finding that Tiller could not establish himself as a qualified individual under the ADA. The ADA requires that an individual be able to perform the essential functions of his job with or without reasonable accommodations, but Tiller admitted during his testimony that he thought he was unable to return to work as a police sergeant. The Court also noted that Tiller did not allege sufficient facts to establish that he was treated less favorably than a non-disabled person:
“The City’s protocols, including fitness-for-duty evaluations, are uniformly applied to ensure that only mentally fit officers return to active service, therefore protecting the City’s undeniable interest in public safety. Because Tiller has failed to refute the City’s rational interests, establishing a violation of his right to equal protection under the law, summary judgement is appropriate.”
The Court thus granted summary judgement for the city, dismissing Tiller’s claims.
This case demonstrates the way in which an employee’s disability claim can be a “double edged sword.” The fact that the employee may be disabled, doesn’t automatically mean that the employer must find a way to accommodate them in their job. An accommodation to adjust the requirement of the job are not required when the employee is unable to fulfill the requirements of the job. Employees asserting a disability claim should be considering their long-term goals. What could qualify one for long-term disability coverage could simultaneously undermine a claim for continued job entitlement.
In this case, the employer argued for what the court characterized as an “indefinite” leave of absence to address an admitted lack of current fitness. But the law does not require employers to extent “indefinite leave” where there’s no identifiable reasonable return date.
** Visit our Premium Website for more information on General Obligations of Employers and Mental Health Issues**
