Employer lands in court over rescinded job offer due to HIV
Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) stepped in on behalf of an individual who filed a claim against a town’s police department alleging that it unlawfully revoked a job offer because of his human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diagnosis. The individual had been successfully working as a volunteer reserve officer for the town’s police department as a volunteer reserve officer for over a year and was qualified to work as a police officer.
Mandated medical examination
The job offer was contingent upon the officer passing a state-mandated medical examination. The officer told the medical examiner about being under a doctor’s care for HIV treatment and taking prescribed medications. The medical examiner noted that the officer had no long-term evidence of active disease and had no other notable health issues.
Despite these findings, the medical examiner told the town that the officer did not meet the medical standards because HIV was a communicable disease that posed a significant risk of substantial harm to the health and safety of the officer’s colleagues and the public. The medical examiner did not, however, cite any objective scientific or medical evidence in support of this, or reveal any individualized findings on how the officer’s HIV status affected job performance.
Rescinded the job offer
Based on the medical examiner’s information, the town rescinded the job offer claiming that the reason was because the officer did not pass the statewide test.
The officer appealed the decision. Eight months later, he was added back to the police officer hiring list, but was not hired. In response, the officer filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that the job offer recission was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC referred the matter to the DOJ.
Eventually, the officer accepted a position as a police officer with a different police department.
ADA requirements
Title I of the ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified individuals on the basis of disability. Discrimination includes withdrawing a job offer to a qualified individual based on unsupported and stereotypical views of an applicant’s disability.
Under the terms of the consent decree, which must be approved by the court, the town will revise its policies and procedures regarding employment-related medical examinations and will train relevant personnel on the requirements of Title I of the ADA. The town will also pay $150,000 in compensatory damages to the officer and provide an affidavit that makes it clear that the termination was the town’s error.
The court also asked the town to reinstate the officer with seniority and retirement benefits as if there was no break in employment.
U.S. v. The Town of Clarskville, Indiana; Southern District of Indiana, No. 4:22-cv-00056
Key takeaway: Just because a medical examiner suggests not hiring someone based on a diagnosis, employers should keep a close eye out for situations like this one. HIV is generally a disability and discriminating on its basis with no other information supporting the suggestion can easily risk a claim.