Supreme Court holds HIV infection is a "disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act

In an opinion delivered on June 25, 1998, the United States Supreme Court specifically held that HIV infection is a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"). Bragdon v. Abbott, U.S. (1998).

In Bragdon, Sidney Abbott, who had been infected with the HIV since 1986, went to the dental office of Randon Bragdon for a dental appointment. She noted on her patient registration form that she was infected with HIV. The dentist completed the dental examination and discovered a cavity but refused to fill the cavity in his dental office. Instead, the dentist offered to fill the cavity at a local hospital (with no added fee for his services) with Ms. Abbott being required to pay any additional costs associated with using the hospital's facilities. She declined and sued Dr. Bragdon under Section 302 of the ADA.

In considering Ms. Abbott's claim, the Court set forth a framework for determining what constitutes a "disability" under the ADA. The Court found that a three step analysis was required:

  • Does the condition constitute a "physical impairment" as defined by the ADA?
  • Does the life activity constitute a "major life activity" as defined by the ADA?
  • Does the impairment "substantially limit" the major life activity?

In determining whether Ms. Abbot's condition met this criteria, the Court relied heavily on the regulations promulgated pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and construed "the ADA to grant at least as much protection as provided by the regulations implementing the Rehabilitation Act."

The Court held that Ms. Abbott's condition met each of the criteria specifically finding that:

  • HIV must be regarded as a physiological disorder "from the moment of infection" that "satisfies the statutory and regulatory definition of a physical impairment during every stage of the disease."
  • HIV affects the major life activity of reproduction and child birth
  • HIV substantially limits the ability to reproduce and bear children because of the "significant risk" of transmission of the disease during conception and childbirth.

Of particular note is the fact that the Court recognized that "when significant limitations result from the impairment, the definition of [disability] is met even if the difficulties are not insurmountable."

If you believe that you have been discriminated against on the basis of a disability, please feel free to contact one of our attorneys experienced in the area of employment law at (800) 988-3514 for a free telephone consultation.

Quick Reference

Address me as:

Email:


Phone:


Message: