The plaintiff Horgan had been diagnosed as HIV positive ten years previously, but chose to keep his status confidential. His job performance remained good and he was promoted to the position of General Manager of the company’s Chicago facility. Simmons is the president of the company and was Horgan’s supervisor. Simmons requested a meeting with Horgan. The meeting was purportedly a “social visit,” but Simmons began to press Horgan for information about his medical condition. In response to Simmons’ insistent questioning, Horgan felt compelled to reveal his HIV positive status. Simmons asked questions about Horgan’s prognosis and then asked him "how he could ever perform his job with his HIV positive condition and how he could continue to work with a terminal illness." Simmons also allegedly said that he "did not know how [Plaintiff] could lead if the employees knew about his condition." Simmons allegedly told Horgan that he needed "to recover" and that he should "go on vacation" and "leave the plant immediately.” An e-mail sent out to other managers the next day stated that Horgan had been terminated.

1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the court decide?

2. On what basis does the court conclude that this employee is disabled? If the court had not found him to have an actual disability, would he have been able to successfully argue that he was “regarded as” having a disability?

3. Why was the employer’s questioning of this employee illegal? If, as it appears, the termination was based on the employee’s disability, is there any way the employer could defend its actions?

4. Why do you think the company president acted as he did?