Generally, society does not accept individuals who are infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV); also commonly referred as HIV positive. Generally, it is a commonly held belief throughout society that interacting with HIV positive individuals causes or spreads . Generally, people avoid interacting with HIV infected people, they try to keep them away or shun them from regular social activities. However, recently efforts have increased to ensure that those living with HIV receive equal treatment as others in the society. Quite frankly, such unequal treatment is borne out of lifestyle value judgments, association stereotyping, and medical ignorance, really just another form of discrimination.

One of the well-known cases that have been decided in this regard is Randon v. .

In this case, Sidney Abbott, an HIV infected person had visited a dentist, Randon Bragdon, for a dental appointment. She disclosed to the dentist on a patient registration form that she had been infected with HIV. The dentist completed his examination, discovered a cavity, and informed her of his policy of not filling the cavities of HIV infected people in his clinic. However, he offered to treat her in a hospital at the same charge. Abbott declined the dentist’s offer and filed a suit against him under , 1990 (“ADA�) for discrimination.

Section 302 of ADA states:
“No individual shall be against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation�.

The definition of public accommodation specifically includes the “professional office of a health care provider� or hospitals. Abbott alleged that she was discriminated on the basis of her disability; being HIV infected which affected her major life activity that being the ability to reproduce and bear children.

Physical impairment has been defined under as:
“a²Ô²â or condition affecting the body’s hemic and lymphatic systemsâ€�.

Thus HIV infection satisfies the above definition of physical impairment from the beginning of infection and thru all stages of progression of the disease. The court observed that Abbott’s infection was at a lower level (asymptomatic stage) and had not progressed to a symptomatic stage. Hence, treating Abbott in his clinic by the dentist would not have been a direct threat to the health, welfare and safety of other people working in the clinic. Further, the court observed that Abbott’s HIV infection had substantially limited the major life activity of reproduction and bearing of children by Abbott.

The court cited the Policy, 1991 which states:
“Current scientific and epidemiologic evidence indicates that there is little risk of transmission of infectious diseases through dental treatment if recommended procedures are routinely followed. Patients with HIV infection may be safely treated in private dental offices when appropriate infection control procedures are employed. Such infection control procedures provide protection both for patients and dental personnel�.

In view of the above, the court ruled that HIV infection is a disability that substantially limits major life activities of individuals even though the infection is at an asymptomatic stage and has not progressed to the symptomatic stage.
If you believe that, you are the victim of disability discrimination aka sexual harassment contact ¸£Àû¼§. in New York at 1-800-371-4835. We will review your claim thoroughly, providing you with an outline of possible actions you may wish to take. We are ready to be your voice for justice.

The post HIV Infection Is A Disability/Physical Impairment first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

Answer: Depends

The () has stated that ‘’ rules for workplace employees violate the law unless they are “reasonably necessary to the operation of the business.� The EEOC further delineates caveats for employers:

• A rule requiring employees to speak only English in the workplace at all times, including breaks and lunch time, will rarely be justified.
• An English-only rule should be limited to the circumstances in which it is needed for the employer to operate safely or efficiently.
• Circumstances in which an English-only rule may be justified include: communications with customers or coworkers who only speak English; emergencies or other situations in which workers must speak a common language to promote safety; cooperative work assignments in which the English-only rule is needed to promote efficiency.

They also note that even if there is a need for an English-only rule, “an employer may not take disciplinary action against an employee for violating the rule unless the employer has notified workers about the rule and the consequences of violating it.�

While English-only policies may only be warranted for “business necessity,� some courts and the EEOC take the position that such rules hinder national origin individuals from speaking the language that they are best able to communicate and employers should bear in mind that any English-only policy should not apply to non-work related casual conversation in addition to being uniformly applied regardless of race or country of origin.

The EEOC has filed national origin discrimination lawsuits against employers that have violated the law as in the case of EEOC v. Delano Regional Medical Center (). According to the EEOC, this hospital prohibited employees from speaking their native language while allowing non-Filipino employees to speak other languages such as Spanish. The EEOC further alleged that DRMC management created a for the Filipino employees by targeting them for reprimands in a company meeting that served as a reminder to the workers about the English-only policy, threatened them with audio surveillance to ensure compliance with the company’s English-only policy and encouraged other employees to report on them; all of which caused tension between the Filipino and non-Filipino staff members. In addition, the Commission also alleged that upper-level hospital management failed to investigate or take action against the alleged discrimination even after 115 Filipino employees signed a petition reporting the discrimination and harassment.

When pre-litigation settlement negotiations failed, the EEOC filed the lawsuit and sought compensatory and punitive damages, and an injunction against future discrimination. The case was settled when the hospital agreed to a three-year consent decree that required DRMC to pay monetary relief, the development of strong protocols for handling discrimination and harassment complaints, the hiring of an monitor whose function would be to help the hospital revise policies, procedures as well as conduct and anti-harassment training for staff and additional training for supervisors.

This case should serve as a reminder to employers when devising English-only policies the law should be considered and that targeting employees on the basis of their national origin is illegal. It also should empower employees to report national origin discrimination and harassment to supervisors and/or management rather than accept discriminatory treatment.

If you believe that, you have suffered from arbitrarily applied English-only rules or National Origin Discrimination contact ¸£Àû¼§. in New York. We will review your claim thoroughly, providing you with an outline of possible actions you may wish to take. We are ready to be your voice for justice.

The post Are English-Only Rules in the Workplace Lawful? first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..