Couture v. Bonfils Memorial Blood Center, 10th Circuit, Amicus Brief by Lambda Legal, et al,

Categories

• Employment
• HIV as a Disability Under Antidiscrimination Law

Resource Type

Pleadings and Briefs  

Description

Couture v. Bonfils Memorial Blood Center, 10th Circuit, Amicus Brief by Lambda, et al, 2005-01 Couture v. Bonfils Memorial Blood Center, 10th Circuit, January 2005: Amicus Brief by American Academy of HIV Medicine, International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care, National Association of People with AIDS, Western Colorado AIDS Project, and Womens Lighthouse Project. Amici collectively represent and treat hundreds of thousands of individuals throughout the United States and worldwide who are infected with HIV. Based on their experience and knowledge about the course, effects and treatment of HIV disease, amici understand that HIV invariably substantially limits the major life activities of those living with the disease and that people with HIV commonly are regarded as substantially limited as well. Urging reversal of the lower courts ruling, the amici here address the issue of whether appellants HIV-positive status qualifies as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and answer in the affirmative. Amici defend this position on three grounds: (1) The text and legislative history of the ADA establish that the act provides broad protections to people with HIV, (2) HIV infection is a disability, and (3) HIV-positive individuals are regarded as disabled. On the first point, amici point out the broad intent of congress in drafting the ADA as well as the verbatim use of the definition of disability from the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 which recognized HIV as a disability. On the second point, amici discuss the three step analysis used by courts to determine whether a plaintiffs disability falls within the ADAs definition. Amici also address the judicial/legislative meaning of major life activity and, in citing both the physical impairments of HIV and the limitations of procreating and sexual relationships as a result of infection, contend that appellants HIV-positive status meet this definition. Amici contend that the Supreme Court ruling in Bragdon, and subsequent federal rulings, compels recognition of appellants HIV-positive status as a disability under the ADAs definition. On the third point, amici contend that the ADAs protection of those regarded as disabled applies directly to the appellant whose employer regarded him as being substantially impaired and whose termination was based on fears and stereotypes. Amici contend that the termination based on fears and/or stereotypes about plaintiffs disability is precisely what the ADA was created to combat.

 

File

Click here to download this document [ 225.32 kB ]  

Published

2005-January-29