Horgan V. Simmons

Submitted by: Submitted by

Views: 405

Words: 500

Pages: 2

Category: Business and Industry

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013 08:31 AM

Report This Essay

The plaintiff (Kenneth Horgan) works for Morgan Services, Inc., a linen and uniform rental service company. Horgan has been HIV positive for ten years. After working for the company for eight years, Horgan was invited to a social visit with Timothy Simmons, Morgan president. Simmons anticipated something was wrong with Horgan and assisted he tell what has been going on medically. Horgan insisted nothing was wrong that would affect his ability to perform his job duties. Simmons didn’t want to let up and Horgan felt he was compelled to tell Simmons that he is HIV positive. The next day after the social event Horgan was terminated and alleged this was employment discrimination and the only reason he was terminated is because of his disability. The first decision by the courts was the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s first claim was denied. The Plaintiff continues to pursue the case and because the plaintiff has sufficiently pled a claim for an impermissible inquiry under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Defendants’ motion to dismiss on this basis was denied.

The (ADA) defines “disability,” with respect to an individual, as (1) “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual”; (2) “a record of such an impairment”; or (3) “being regarded as having such an impairment.” (page. 314). HIV is a physical impairment, even though the Plaintiff didn’t file a claim of disability under the ADA. Congress amended the ADA to reinstate a broad scope of protection; the ADAAA clarified that the operation of “major bodily functions,” including “functions of the immune system,” constitute major life activities under the ADA’s first definition of disability. So the question on whether or not an individual’s impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis. The court felt that under the amended ADA that the Plaintiff’s HIV positive status substantially limits...