A federal appeals court overturned a lower court and reinstated a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by a Pittsburgh police applicant, who said he was rejected for the position by psychologists because of his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis.

Christopher Gibbs “aced’ the written test to become a Pittsburgh policeman, and got a conditional job offer, according to Wednesday’s ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pittsburgh in Christopher Gibbs v. City of Pittsburgh.

But he never received a job offer because two of the three psychologists who interviewed him said he was unfit to serve, the ruling said. Mr. Gibbs alleged the psychologists were biased and reflexively rejected him because of his ADHD diagnosis. 

He said five other police departments found him to be mentally fit and had hired him, and he had never misbehaved as a police officer or as a marine. He said he had misbehaved as a child before being treated for ADHD, and that Pittsburgh had hired other applicants with similar childhood issues not caused by ADHD.

Mr. Gibbs sued Pittsburgh under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.  The U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh granted the city summary judgment dismissing the case, which was overturned by a unanimous three-judge appeals court panel.

“Governments have a right to ensure that their policemen are mentally fit.  But they may not use psychological testing as a cover to discriminate,” the ruling said.

Mr. Gibbs has plausibly alleged he was qualified for the position. The City says he lacked one qualification, passing the psychological test, but “That response misses the point,” the ruling 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 way, of course he does not need to satisfy those criteria to bring a discrimination claim.”

To plausibly allege he suffered discrimination, Mr. Gibbs “does not have to have detailed evidence,” but need only “raise the reasonable expectation that discovery will uncover evidence of discriminatory motive,” the ruling said, in citing an earlier case.

“Gibbs has done that. 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….If his allegations are true, there is a reasonable chance that discovery will unearth more evidence of it,” the ruling said, in reversing the district court’s dismissal and remanding the case to allow discovery.

“This is an exceptionally clear, concise and well-written opinion,” said Margaret S. Coleman, an attorney with the Law Office of Timothy P. O’Brien in Pittsburgh, who had argued the case before the appeals court, in a statement.

“The fact that it is precedential means that it doesn’t just help Mr. Gibbs. 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.”

Pittsburgh attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.

Last month, a federal appeals court overturned a lower court and reinstated a disability discrimination charge filed on behalf of a rehabilitation facility’s former laundry worker who suffered from an anxiety disorder.