Discrimination | HIVAIDS | Massachusetts

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

• 患有艾滋病或艾滋病毒阳性的人，即使他们无症状且没有外在或明显的疾病迹象。
• People who have a record of or who are regarded or perceived as having HIV.
• Under federal law, but not Massachusetts law, a person who does not have HIV, but who “associates” with a person with HIV – such as a friend, lover, spouse, roommate, business associate, advocate or caregiver.

People with HIV are protected under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 151B and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Both of these statutes prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of a person’s disability. Massachusetts law covers workplaces with six or more employees. The ADA covers workplaces with 15 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 an individual’s HIV/AIDS status.

这里的重点是艾滋病患者或艾滋病毒感染者是否与类似情况下的其他申请人或员工受到不同的待遇。

以下是非法歧视的例子：

• 雇主不得因担心艾滋病毒感染者会传染给其他员工或顾客而拒绝雇用该感染者。
• 雇主不得基于某人将来可能生病而无法胜任工作的可能性或概率而拒绝雇用或做出雇用决定。
• 雇主不能因为这会增加健康或工人赔偿保险费而拒绝雇用某人。

No. Massachusetts law (M.G.L. c. 111, § 70F) prohibits an employer from requiring that an employee take an HIV test under any circumstances at any stage of the application or employment process.

Under the ADA and Massachusetts law, 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:

• 您曾经住院或接受过医生的护理吗？
• 您是否曾经领取过工伤赔偿或残疾福利？
• Have you ever had any medical problems that would make it difficult for you to do your job?
• 你吃什么药？

An employer may, however, ask whether an applicant has the knowledge, skill and ability to perform the job functions.

Under the ADA, after a conditional offer of employment, an employer may request a medical examination or any medical information, without limitation.  However, the ADA does require the employer to follow certain practices:

• The employer must require the medical exam or inquiry of all applicants in the job category.
• The information must be kept strictly confidential. It must be on separate forms and kept in a segregated file apart from a general personnel file.
• The information may not be shared with others, with a limited exception for supervisors or managers who need to be informed of necessary job restrictions or accommodations, or safety personnel who may be told if the person with a disability requires emergency treatment.
• The results of the medical examination cannot be used to withdraw the job offer unless the results indicate that the individual is not able to perform the essential functions of the job with reasonable accommodation.

After employment has begun, an employer may only require a medical exam of a current employee if it is “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” The employer must demonstrate that the medical examination is necessary to measure the employee’s actual performance of job functions.

Of course, as noted above, employers in Massachusetts are prohibited from requesting an HIV test at any time.

In general, Massachusetts law limits employer health inquiries more strictly than federal law. Under Massachusetts law, after a conditional offer of employment, an employer may only require a medical examination for the purpose of determining whether the employee is capable of performing the essential functions of the job with reasonable accommodation.

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.

《美国残疾人法案》中的就业条款规定，如果员工“对他人的健康或安全构成直接威胁”，则其不具备从事该工作的资格。为了确定员工是否构成“直接威胁”，法院会分析以下因素：

• 风险的性质、持续时间和严重程度；
• 风险的概率；以及
• 是否可以通过合理的安排消除风险。

在HIV阳性医护人员的案件中，法院忽视了风险发生的可能性极小，反而关注风险的性质、持续时间和严重程度。以下摘自近期一个案例，体现了法院的典型做法：

“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^日 Cir. Md) (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.

虽然咨询律师可能会有所帮助，但以下步骤可以帮助您开始考虑和评估潜在的就业歧视问题。

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, a 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:

• 雇主知道或得知您是艾滋病毒阳性或患有艾滋病；
• 无论是否有合理的便利条件，您都具备履行该工作基本职责的资格；并且
• 由于您的 HIV 或艾滋病状况而对您采取了不利措施，并且雇主给出的不利措施借口是虚假的。

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:

• 处于类似情况的其他员工是否受到了不同的待遇或相同的待遇？
• 您的雇主是否遵守了其人事政策？
• 雇主得知您的艾滋病毒状况后不久就开始对您进行不利的待遇了吗？
• 您是否曾因病缺勤过一段时间，并且返回工作岗位后是否开始受到不良治疗？
• 你的雇主对此事的描述是怎样的？你该如何证明雇主的说法是错误的？

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:

• 该公司如何运作？实际的住宿安排如何？
• 站在主管的角度想想，对于你提出的合理安排，主管可能会提出哪些异议？例如，如果你需要在某个时间离开去看医生，谁来接替你的工作？

It is illegal under both Massachusetts law (M.G.L. c. 151B) and the federal 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 status, or because he or she is regarded as having HIV or AIDS.

In addition, a person cannot be discriminated against in housing because of their “association” with a person with HIV.  This means a person cannot be discriminated against because their roommate, lover, friend, relative, or business partner has HIV.

Yes. Massachusetts law exempts owner-occupied two-unit housing. 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 occupancy to members.

Yes. Under both Massachusetts law (M.G.L. c. 272, § 98) 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. In addition, the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.A. § 794) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in any agency or program that receives federal funding, including hospitals, medical or dental offices, and educational institutions.

Therefore, people with HIV are protected from discrimination in virtually every public place or business, including bars, restaurants, hotels, stores, schools, vocational or other educational programs, taxi cabs, buses, airplanes and other modes of transportation, health clubs, hospitals and medical and dental offices, as long as these facilities are generally open to the public.

Believe it or not, persons with HIV are still faced with 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.

医生通常试图用以下两个论点之一来证明对艾滋病毒感染者的歧视是合理的：

• “治疗艾滋病毒感染者是危险的”（一些医生出于对艾滋病毒传播的非理性恐惧而拒绝治疗艾滋病毒感染者）；
• “治疗艾滋病毒感染者需要特殊的专业知识”（一些医生错误地认为全科医生没有资格为艾滋病毒感染者提供护理，因此将患者转诊给其他医疗服务提供者）。

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 Massachusetts law.

法院和医学专家对这些论点作出了如下回应：

1. “Treating People with HIV is Dangerous”

医生和牙医可能会声称拒绝治疗艾滋病毒感染者是合理的，因为他们担心自己可能通过针刺或其他血液接触感染艾滋病毒。然而，针对医护人员的研究得出结论，职业暴露感染艾滋病毒的风险微乎其微，尤其是在采取普遍预防措施的情况下。

For this reason, in 1998, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case, 布拉格登诉阿博特案, that health care providers cannot refuse to treat people with HIV based on concerns or fears about HIV transmission (524 U.S. 624 (1998)).

除了法律层面，美国医学会、美国牙科协会以及许多其他专业医疗保健组织都发布政策，认为拒绝为艾滋病毒感染者提供治疗是不道德的。

2. “Treating People with HIV Requires Special Expertise”

在这些情况下，歧视索赔的是非曲直取决于基于客观医学证据，患者所需的服务或治疗是否需要转诊给专科医生，或者是否属于服务提供者的服务和能力范围。

在 美国诉莫万特案，一家联邦审判法院驳回了一名牙医的诉求，该牙医声称艾滋病毒感染者需要专科医生进行常规牙科护理（898 F. Supp. 1157 (ED La 1995)）。法院采纳了专家的证词，即除了普通牙医所具备的技能外，无需任何其他特殊培训或专业知识即可为艾滋病毒感染者提供牙科治疗。法院特别驳回了该牙医的论点，即他不具备资格，因为他没有及时掌握治疗艾滋病毒感染者所需的文献和培训。虽然此案发生在牙科护理的背景下，但它也适用于其他医疗环境。

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

• 剥夺艾滋病病毒感染者“充分、平等地享受”医疗服务的权利，或者剥夺艾滋病病毒感染者与其他患者一样“受益”医疗服务的机会。
• 建立接受医疗服务的“资格标准”，往往会筛选出艾滋病毒检测呈阳性的患者。
• 为艾滋病病毒阳性患者提供“不同或单独”的服务，或未能在“最综合的环境中”为患者提供服务。
• 拒绝向已知与艾滋病毒感染者有“关系”或“交往”的人（如配偶、伴侣、子女或朋友）提供平等的医疗服务。

将上述 ADA 的具体规定应用于医疗保健实践，以下做法是违法的：

• 医疗保健提供者不能因为认为存在艾滋病毒传播风险或只是因为医生不愿意治疗艾滋病毒感染者而拒绝治疗艾滋病毒感染者。
• 医疗保健提供者不能仅仅因为患者感染了艾滋病毒就同意仅在医生常规办公室以外的治疗环境（例如专科医院诊所）中为患者进行治疗。
• 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 be an ADA violation to even use unnecessary additional precautions which tend to stigmatize a patient simply on the basis of HIV status.

医疗保健提供者不能限制治疗艾滋病毒阳性患者的预定时间，例如坚持要求艾滋病毒阳性患者在一天结束时来就诊。

要根据《美国残疾人法案》提起就业歧视索赔，雇主必须至少拥有 15 名员工。申请人必须在歧视行为发生之日起 180 天内向平等就业机会委员会 (EEOC) 提出索赔。申请人可以从 EEOC 撤销 ADA 索赔，并向州法院或联邦法院提起诉讼。

根据《美国残疾人法案》，若要就公共场所的歧视提起诉讼，当事人无需先向行政机构提出申请，只需向州法院或联邦法院提起禁令救济（即寻求法院命令停止歧视行为）。除非美国司法部提出索赔，否则违反《美国残疾人法案》第三章的行为不予赔偿。但是，如果当事人针对接受联邦资助的实体提起诉讼，则可以根据《联邦康复法案》追偿赔偿金。

为了根据《康复法》提出索赔，个人可以向联邦卫生与公众服务部地区办事处提出行政投诉和/或直接向法院提起诉讼。

根据《国家公平住房法》，如需就住房歧视提起索赔，个人可在违规行为发生后一年内向美国住房和城市发展部 (HUD) 提出投诉。个人也可在违规行为发生后两年内提起诉讼。无论个人是否已向 HUD 提出投诉，均可提起诉讼。