Published February, 2009
Doe v. Rice, Complaint, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ACLU Foundation (2009)
Alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the ACLU filed this complaint on behalf of an HIV-positive civilian (and former member of the U.S. Army) against the U.S. State Department when he was denied employment solely on the basis of his HIV status. The suit was subsequently settled in August 2009 and, while the details of the settlement agreement are confidential, the ACLU has stated that the State Department has agreed to policy changes that will prevent people living with HIV from being automatically barred from working under department contracts in the future.
The man, who had extensive experience in the field of armed security, sought employment with a private agency that had a contract with the U.S. State Department to provide security for the U.S. embassy in Haiti. After completing the training for employment with the State Department contractor, the man was told that he was disqualified solely on the basis of his HIV status, and without any assessment of his ability to perform the job. The complaint asked the court to find that the State Department’s policy of summarily disqualifying HIV-positive candidates violated both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, and to prohibit the State Department from engaging in discriminatory conduct in the future. The complaint also sought monetary damages, back pay (or front pay if reinstatement is not granted), and attorney’s fees.
Copyright Information: CHLP encourages the broad use and sharing of resources. Please credit CHLP when using these materials or their content. and do not alter, adapt or present as your work without prior permission from CHLP.
Legal Disclaimer: CHLP makes an effort to ensure legal information is correct and current, but the law is regularly changing, and the accuracy of the information provided cannot be guaranteed. The legal information in a given resource may not be applicable to all situations and is not—and should not be relied upon—as a substitute for legal advice.