Potential ADA Liability
Question
Bob's wife is HIV-positive due to a blood transfusion during an appendectomy 15 years ago. She is not yet sick, but takes medication to prevent the onset of AIDS.
Bob occasionally needs to take time off from work to take her for testing at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. Because of complaints about Bob's exposure to this disease, employees have asked HR to limit his contact with them and with customers. The bank has asked Bob not to eat in the lunchroom with the other employees and has placed Bob in a position where he has limited customer contact. Does this company have any potential ADA liability?
Answers
Explanations
Click on the arrows to vote for the correct answer
A. B. C. D.D
This question relates to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which is a federal law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in employment, public accommodations, transportation, and other areas of life.
In this case, Bob's wife has HIV, and Bob occasionally takes time off from work to take her for testing at Johns Hopkins. Due to complaints about Bob's exposure to the disease, employees have asked HR to limit his contact with them and with customers. As a result, the bank has asked Bob not to eat in the lunchroom with the other employees and has placed Bob in a position where he has limited customer contact.
The question is whether the bank has any potential ADA liability for its actions. Let's look at each of the answer choices in turn:
A. No. Bob's exposure to HIV could endanger other employees and customers.
This answer choice is incorrect because it is based on a misconception about how HIV is transmitted. HIV is not transmitted through casual contact, such as sharing food or utensils or being in the same room as someone who has the virus. It is transmitted through specific bodily fluids, such as blood, semen, vaginal fluids, and breast milk. Therefore, the bank's actions are not justified by concerns about transmission.
B. No. Because the hiring manager does not know that Bob actually has HIV or AIDS, there is no liability.
This answer choice is also incorrect. The ADA prohibits discrimination based on a perceived or known disability, regardless of whether the individual actually has the disability. In this case, it is clear that the bank knows about Bob's wife's HIV status, and it is reasonable to assume that they know that Bob may be at risk of contracting the virus as a result. Therefore, the bank cannot avoid liability by claiming ignorance of Bob's HIV status.
C. Yes. Because the manager has associated Bob with this disease, the "associated with" rule applies.
This answer choice is partially correct. The ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals who are "associated with" a person with a disability, such as a spouse or family member. Therefore, if the bank is treating Bob differently based on its perception that he is associated with HIV due to his wife's status, it may be in violation of the ADA.
D. Yes. Because the manager has regarded Bob as having a disability, he has been "regarded as" disabled and the ADA applies.
This answer choice is also partially correct. The ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals who are "regarded as" having a disability, even if they do not actually have the disability. If the bank is treating Bob differently based on its perception that he has HIV or is at risk of contracting the virus due to his wife's status, it may be in violation of the ADA.
In conclusion, the correct answer to this question is either C or D, depending on the bank's specific actions and the reasons behind them. If the bank is treating Bob differently based on its perception that he is associated with HIV due to his wife's status, it may be in violation of the ADA. If the bank is treating Bob differently based on its perception that he has HIV or is at risk of contracting the virus due to his wife's status, it may also be in violation of the ADA.
