Discrimination | HIV/AIDS | Connecticut

Yes, Connecticut has enacted anti-discrimination laws protecting people with HIV from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and credit. In addition, there are a number of federal laws that protect people from discrimination based on their HIV status.

• Menschen mit AIDS oder HIV-positiv, auch wenn sie asymptomatisch sind und keine äußeren oder offensichtlichen Anzeichen einer Krankheit aufweisen.
• Under the ADA, but not Connecticut law, persons who are regarded or perceived as having HIV.
• Under the ADA, but not Connecticut law, a person who does not have HIV, but who “associates” with a person with HIV — such as friends, lovers, spouses, roommates, business associates, advocates, and caregivers of a person or persons with HIV.

People who are HIV-positive or who have AIDS are protected from employment discrimination under both Connecticut Human Rights Law (Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46a-60) and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Both of these statutes prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of a person’s disability.  The Connecticut law covers employers with 3 or more employees in the United States; the ADA covers employers with fifteen or more employees.

An employer may not take adverse action against an applicant or employee simply on the basis that the person has a disability such as HIV or AIDS.  This means that an employer may not terminate, refuse to hire, rehire, or promote, or otherwise discriminate in the terms or conditions of employment, based on the fact that a person is HIV-positive or has AIDS.

Dabei steht im Vordergrund, ob eine Person mit AIDS oder HIV anders behandelt wurde als andere Bewerber oder Mitarbeiter in vergleichbaren Situationen.

Beispiele für unrechtmäßige Diskriminierung sind:

• Ein Arbeitgeber darf die Einstellung einer Person mit HIV nicht aus Angst vor einer HIV-Übertragung auf andere Mitarbeiter oder Kunden ablehnen.
• Ein Arbeitgeber darf die Einstellung einer Person oder eine Einstellungsentscheidung nicht aufgrund der Möglichkeit oder sogar Wahrscheinlichkeit ablehnen, dass eine Person krank wird und die Arbeit in Zukunft nicht mehr ausüben kann.
• Ein Arbeitgeber kann die Einstellung einer Person nicht mit der Begründung ablehnen, dass dadurch die Beiträge zur Kranken- oder Unfallversicherung steigen würden.

Under the ADA, prior to employment, an employer cannot ask questions that are aimed at determining whether an employee has a disability.  Examples of prohibited pre-employment questions are:

• Waren Sie schon einmal im Krankenhaus oder in ärztlicher Behandlung?
• Haben Sie jemals eine Arbeitsunfallentschädigung oder eine Erwerbsunfähigkeitsrente bezogen?
• Welche Medikamente nehmen Sie?

If an employer has 15 or more employees, they must comply with the ADA.  After a conditional offer of employment, an employer may require a physical examination or medical history.  The job offer, however, may not be withdrawn unless the results demonstrate that the person cannot perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation.  The same medical inquiries must be made of each person in the same job category.  In addition, the physical examination and medical history records must be segregated from personnel records, and there are strict confidentiality protections.

After employment has begun, the ADA permits an employer to only require a physical examination if it is job-related and consistent with business necessity.

The risk of HIV transmission from a health care worker to a patient is considered so small that it approaches zero.  Nevertheless, in cases where hospitals have sought to restrict or terminate the privileges of HIV-positive health care workers who perform invasive procedures, courts have reacted with tremendous fear and have insisted on an impossible “zero risk” standard. As a result, the small number of courts that have addressed this issue under the ADA have upheld such terminations.

The employment provisions in the ADA provide that an employee is not qualified to perform the job if he or she poses a “direct threat to the health or safety of others.” To determine whether an employee poses a “direct threat,” a court analyzes:

• The nature, duration and severity of the risk;
• Die Wahrscheinlichkeit des Risikos; und
• Ob das Risiko durch angemessene Vorkehrungen beseitigt werden kann.

However, in the case of HIV-positive health care workers, courts have ignored the extremely remote probability of the risk and focused on the nature, duration and severity of the risk. The following excerpt from a recent case is typical of courts’ approach:

“We hold that Dr. Doe does pose a significant risk to the health and safety of his patients that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation. Although there may presently be no documented case of surgeon-to-patient transmission, such transmission clearly is possible. And, the risk of percutaneous injury can never be eliminated through reasonable accommodation.  Thus, even if Dr. Doe takes extra precautions … some measure of risk will always exist …” (Doe v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation, 50 F.3d 1261 (4^th Cir. 1995)).

It is important to note that only a small number of courts have addressed the rights of HIV-­positive health care workers.  The AIDS Law Project believes that these cases have been incorrectly decided and are inconsistent with the intent of Congress in passing the ADA.   Because of the unsettled nature of the law in this area, a health care worker who is confronted with potential employment discrimination should consult a lawyer or public health advocate.

Auch wenn es sinnvoll sein kann, einen Anwalt zu konsultieren, können die folgenden Schritte hilfreich sein, um mit der Betrachtung und Bewertung eines potenziellen Problems der Diskriminierung am Arbeitsplatz zu beginnen.

1. Consider the difference between unfairness and illegal discrimination. The bottom line of employment law is that an employee can be fired for a good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all. A person can be legally fired for a lot of reasons, including a bad “personality match.” What they cannot be fired for is a discriminatory reason specifically outlawed by a statute.

2. In order to prove a discrimination claim (i.e., that you were fired, demoted, etc. because of discrimination and not because of some legitimate reason), you must be able to show the following:

• Der Arbeitgeber wusste oder hat herausgefunden, dass Sie HIV-positiv sind oder AIDS haben;
• Sie waren qualifiziert, die wesentlichen Aufgaben der Stelle mit oder ohne angemessene Anpassung zu erfüllen; und
• Adverse action was taken against you because of your HIV or AIDS status and the pre-textual reason given by the employer for the adverse action is false.

3. If your employer knows that you have HIV or AIDS, identify exactly who knows, how they know, and when they found out. If you have not told your employer, is there any other way the employer would know or suspect your HIV status?

4. Consider the reasons why you believe that you are being treated differently because of HIV status, including the following areas:

• Wurden andere Mitarbeiter in ähnlichen Situationen anders oder gleich behandelt?
• Hat Ihr Arbeitgeber seine Personalrichtlinien eingehalten?
• Begann die ungünstige Behandlung kurz nachdem der Arbeitgeber von Ihrem HIV-Status erfahren hatte?
• Waren Sie wegen einer Krankheit für einen bestimmten Zeitraum arbeitsunfähig und begann die negative Behandlung erst nach Ihrer Rückkehr an den Arbeitsplatz?
• Wie wird die Version Ihres Arbeitgebers zu den Ereignissen aussehen? Wie werden Sie beweisen, dass die Version des Arbeitgebers falsch ist?

5. Do you have any difficulty fulfilling the duties of your job because of any HIV-related health or medical issue? Does your condition prevent full-time work, or require time off for medical appointments, lighter duties or a less stressful position? You might want to try brainstorming to create a reasonable accommodation that you can propose to your employer. Here are some points to consider:

• Wie funktioniert das Unternehmen und wie würde die Unterbringung in der Praxis funktionieren?
• Versetzen Sie sich in die Lage Ihres Vorgesetzten. Welche Einwände könnten gegen die geforderte angemessene Unterbringung erhoben werden? Wenn Sie beispielsweise zu einer bestimmten Zeit wegen eines Arzttermins abreisen müssen, wer würde Ihre Aufgaben übernehmen?

It is illegal under both Connecticut law (Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46a-64c) and the National Fair Housing Amendments of 1989, to discriminate in the sale or rental of housing on the basis of HIV status.  A person cannot be evicted from an apartment because of his or her HIV or AIDS status, or because he or she is regarded as having HIV or AIDS.

Yes, Connecticut law exempts a rental portion of a single-family dwelling if the owner maintains and occupies part of the living quarters as his or her residence, or for the rental of a unit in a residence that has four or fewer apartments when the owner occupies one apartment.  In addition, the Fair Housing act exempts, in some circumstances, ownership-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit the occupancy to members.

Yes, under Connecticut law (Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46a-64), and the ADA, it is unlawful to exclude a person with HIV from a public place (what the law refers to as a “public accommodation”) or to provide unequal or restricted services to a person with HIV in a public place.  Under both statutes, the term “public accommodation” includes any establishment or business that offers services to the public.

Daher sind Menschen mit HIV an praktisch allen öffentlichen Orten und in allen Unternehmen vor Diskriminierung geschützt, einschließlich Bars, Restaurants, Hotels, Geschäften, Schulen, Berufs- oder anderen Bildungsprogrammen, Taxis, Bussen, Flugzeugen und anderen Verkehrsmitteln, Fitnessstudios, Krankenhäusern sowie Arzt- und Zahnarztpraxen, sofern diese Einrichtungen grundsätzlich für die Öffentlichkeit zugänglich sind.

Believe it or not, yes, people with HIV still face discrimination by hospitals, doctors, dentists, and other health care providers. This discrimination can take the form of an outright refusal to provide medical services or an illegal referral because of a patient’s HIV status.

Ärzte versuchen die Diskriminierung von Menschen mit HIV typischerweise mit einem von zwei Argumenten zu rechtfertigen:

• „Die Behandlung von Menschen mit HIV ist gefährlich“ (Einige Ärzte weigern sich, Menschen mit HIV zu behandeln, weil sie eine irrationale Angst vor einer HIV-Übertragung haben); und
• „Die Behandlung von Menschen mit HIV erfordert spezielle Fachkenntnisse“ (Einige Ärzte überweisen Patienten an andere medizinische Dienstleister, weil sie fälschlicherweise glauben, dass Allgemeinmediziner nicht für die Behandlung von Patienten mit HIV qualifiziert sind).

Both an outright refusal to provide medical treatment and unnecessary referrals on the basis of a person’s disability are unlawful under the ADA and Connecticut law.

Courts and medical experts have responded to these arguments in the following ways:

1. „Die Behandlung von HIV-Infizierten ist gefährlich“

Doctors and dentists may claim that a refusal to treat a patient with HIV is legitimate because they fear they might contract HIV themselves through needle sticks or other exposures to blood.  However, studies of health care workers have concluded that risk of contracting HIV from occupational exposure is minuscule, especially with the use of universal precautions.

For this reason, in 1998, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case Bragdon v. Abbott that health care providers cannot refuse to treat people with HIV based on concerns or fears about HIV transmission (524 U.S. 624 (1998)).

In addition to the legal perspective, both the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association, and many other professional health care organizations, have issued policies that it is unethical to refuse treatment to a person with HIV.

1. „Die Behandlung von Menschen mit HIV erfordert besondere Expertise“

In diesen Fällen hängt die Begründetheit einer Diskriminierungsklage davon ab, ob aufgrund objektiver medizinischer Beweise die vom Patienten benötigten Leistungen oder Behandlungen eine Überweisung an einen Spezialisten erfordern oder in den Leistungs- und Kompetenzbereich des Anbieters fallen.

In United States v. Morvant, a federal trial court rejected a dentist’s claim that patients with HIV require a specialist for routine dental care (898 F. Supp. 1157 (E.D. La 1995)). The court agreed with the testimony of experts who said that no special training or expertise, other than that possessed by a general dentist, is required to provide dental treatment to people with HIV. The court specifically rejected the dentist’s arguments that he was unqualified because he had not kept up with the literature and training necessary to treat patients with HIV. While this case arose in the context of dental care, it is applicable to other medical settings as well.

Under Title III of the ADA (42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12188), it is illegal for a health care provider to:

1. Deny an HIV-positive patient the “full and equal enjoyment” of medical services or to deny an HIV-positive patient the “opportunity to benefit” from medical services in the same manner as other patients.
2. Legen Sie „Berechtigungskriterien“ für die Inanspruchnahme medizinischer Leistungen fest, die dazu führen, dass HIV-positive Patienten ausgesondert werden.
3. Bieten Sie HIV-positiven Patienten „unterschiedliche oder separate“ Dienste an oder stellen Sie den Patienten keine Dienste im „integriertesten Umfeld“ zur Verfügung.
4. Verweigern Sie einer Person, von der bekannt ist, dass sie in einer „Beziehung“ oder „Verbindung“ zu einer Person mit HIV steht, wie etwa einem Ehepartner, Partner, Kind oder Freund, gleichwertige medizinische Leistungen.

Wendet man die oben genannten spezifischen Bestimmungen des ADA auf die Ausübung der Gesundheitsfürsorge an, sind die folgenden Praktiken illegal:

• A health care provider cannot decline to treat a person with HIV based on a perceived risk of HIV transmission or because the physician simply does not feel comfortable treating a person with HIV.
• A health care provider cannot agree to treat a patient only in a treatment setting outside the physician’s regular office, such as a special hospital clinic, simply because the person is HIV-positive.
• A health care provider cannot refer an HIV-positive patient to another clinic or specialist, unless the required treatment is outside the scope of the physician’s usual practice or specialty. The ADA requires that referrals of HIV-positive patients be made on the same basis as referrals of other patients. It is, however, permissible to refer a patient to specialized care if the patient has HIV-related medical conditions which are outside the realm of competence or scope of services of the provider.
• A health care provider cannot increase the cost of services to an HIV-positive patient in order to use additional precautions beyond the mandated OSHA and CDC infection control procedures. Under certain circumstances, it may even be an ADA violation to use unnecessary additional precautions which tend to stigmatize a patient simply on the basis of HIV status.
• A health care provider cannot limit the scheduled times for treating HIV-positive patients, such as insisting that an HIV-positive patient come in at the end of the day.

Any person who “regularly extends or arranges for the extension of credit” for which interest or finance charges are imposed (e.g. a bank, credit union, or other financial institution), may not discriminate because of HIV status in any credit transaction (Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46a-66).

To pursue a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act for employment discrimination, the employer must have at least 15 employees. A person must file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the date of the discriminatory act. A person may remove an ADA claim from the EEOC and file a lawsuit in state or federal court.

To pursue a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act for discrimination in a place of public accommodation, a person may, without first going to an administrative agency, file a claim in state or federal court for injunctive relief only (i.e., seeking a court order that the discriminatory conduct cease). Money damages are not available for violation of Title III of the ADA unless they are sought by the United States Department of Justice. However, a person may recover money damages under the Federal Rehabilitation Act in cases against entities that receive federal funding.

Um einen Anspruch nach dem Rehabilitationsgesetz geltend zu machen, kann eine Person eine Verwaltungsbeschwerde bei der regionalen Niederlassung des Bundesgesundheitsministeriums einreichen und/oder direkt vor Gericht Klage einreichen.

Um einen Anspruch auf Diskriminierung im Wohnungswesen nach dem National Fair Housing Act geltend zu machen, kann innerhalb eines Jahres nach dem Verstoß Beschwerde beim US-amerikanischen Ministerium für Wohnungsbau und Stadtentwicklung (HUD) eingereicht werden. Innerhalb von zwei Jahren nach dem Verstoß kann auch Klage eingereicht werden. Eine Klage kann unabhängig davon eingereicht werden, ob bereits eine Beschwerde beim HUD eingereicht wurde.