1. Did Horgan’s complaint establish a disability under the first prong of the Act’s definition of disability?
2. Did the facts asserted in Horgan’s complaint establish a disability under the third prong of the definition of disability—that he was “regarded as having such an impairment”?

[Kenneth Horgan alleged in his complaint that he was HIV positive and kept his status confidential until his supervisor pressed him about his medical condition. When he told the supervisor of his condition, he was terminated the next day. Horgan claimed that he was unlawfully terminated because of his disability under the ADA. The court's decision set forth here deals with the employer's motion to dismiss the claim, asserting that Horgan was unable to show a protected disability under the ADA.]
CASTILLO, J….
Plaintiff has been diagnosed as HIV positive for the past ten years, but kept his status confidential, disclosing his medical condition only to his close friends.
In February 2001, he began working for Morgan, a linen and uniform rental services company, as a sales manager in Los Angeles. In January 2008, Defendants promoted him to General Manager of the Chicago facility. Plaintiff claims that his HIV positive status never interfered with his ability to perform the essential functions of his job and that he "has always met or exceeded Morgan's legitimate expectations." Specifically, in 2009, Plaintiff claims he brought in a lucrative account with the company's "biggest customer in the country."

Simmons is Morgan's president and was Plaintiffs supervisor in Chicago. On July 15, 2009, Plaintiff alleges that Simmons asked to meet with him for what Simmons termed a "social visit." During their visit, Plaintiff alleges that Simmons "told plaintiff that he was really worried about him." When Plaintiff responded by discussing his work performance, Plaintiff claims that Simmons cut him off saying "this is not about results." Plaintiff alleges that Simmons then "demanded" to know what was going on with him, telling Plaintiff that "if there was something medical going on, [he] needed to know." Plaintiff insisted that there was nothing that affected his ability to work. However, Plaintiff claims that Simmons "continued to insist there was something physical or mental that was affecting [Plaintiff]." Plaintiff claims he was "compelled to tell Simmons that he was HIV positive," but he assured Simmons that his status did not affect his ability to do his job.

Plaintiff alleges that Simmons then asked him about his prognosis. Plaintiff responded that "he had been HIV positive for a long time and that the condition was under control and that his T-cell count was over 300." Next, Plaintiff alleges that Simmons asked "what would happen if his T-cell count went below 200," and Plaintiff replied that he would then have AIDS. After urging Plaintiff to inform his family about his condition, Plaintiff alleges that Simmons 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." Additionally, Plaintiff claims that Simmons told him "that a General Manager needs to be respected by the employees and have the ability to lead," and indicated that he
"did not know how [Plaintiff] could lead if the employees knew about his condition." 

Simmons allegedly ended the meeting by telling Plaintiff that he needed "to recover" and that he should "go on vacation" and "leave the plant immediately." Simmons then told Plaintiff that he would discuss the situation with Morgan's owner. The next day, Plaintiff alleges that he received a copy of an email sent to all general managers and corporate staff indicating that "effective immediately" Plaintiff was "no longer a member of Morgan []." …
ANALYSIS
I. ADA Claims

A. Count I-Termination on the Basis of Disability
The ADA makes it unlawful for an employer to "discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to … terms, conditions, and privileges of employment." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).
"To prevail on an ADA claim, the plaintiff must show (1) he is disabled; (2) he is qualified to perform the essential function of the job with or without accommodation; and (3) he suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability." The ADA defines "disability," with respect to an individual, as: (1) "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual"; (2) "a record of such an impairment"; or (3) "being regarded as having such an impairment." Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated on the basis of his disability: being HIV positive.
Although Defendants acknowledge that being HIV positive is a physical impairment, they argue that Plaintiff has not pled "a limitation of a major life activity," and thus fails to state a claim of disability under the ADA.
Effective January 1, 2009, Congress amended the ADA to "[reinstate] a broad scope of protection." See ADA Amendments Act of 2008 ("ADAAA"), Pub.L.
No. 110-325 (2008). Specifically, Congress found that the Supreme Court had "narrowed" the protection intended to be afforded by the ADA, and through the ADAAA rejected the holdings of Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002). Although the ADAAA left the ADA's three-category definition of "disability" intact, significant changes were made to how these categories were interpreted. Id. at 3555-56.
As relevant to this case, the ADAAA clarified that the operation of "major bodily functions," including "functions of the immune system," constitute major life activities under the ADA's first definition of disability. Id. at 3555. In addition, "an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active." Congress also instructed that "[t]he term 'substantially limits' shall be interpreted consistently with the findings and purposes of the [ADAAA]." Noting that courts had "created an inappropriately high level of limitation," the ADAAA states that "it is the intent of Congress that the primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether entities covered under the ADA have complied with their obligations…." Id. at 3554. Therefore, the "question of whether an individual's impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis." Id.
Defendants claim that even with the additional language of the ADAAA, Plaintiff fails to plead a disability sufficient to state an actionable ADA claim.
This Court disagrees. Drawing all inferences in Plaintiffs favor, it is certainly plausible-particularly, under the amended ADA-that Plaintiffs HIV positive status substantially limits a major life activity: the function of his immune system. Such a conclusion is consistent with the EEOC's proposed regulations to implement the ADAAA which lists HIV as an impairment that will consistently meet the definition of disability.… "Interpreting the definition of disability broadly and without extensive analysis as required under the [ADAAA], some types of impairments will consistently meet the definition of disability. Because of certain characteristics associated with these impairments, the individualized assessment of the limitations on a person can be conducted quickly and easily, and will consistently result in a determination that the person is substantially limited in a major life activity."
… "An employment discrimination case must satisfy notice-pleading requirements; specific facts establishing a prima facie case of employment discrimination are not required."

Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiff has overcome the "two easy-to-clear hurdles" necessary to survive a motion to dismiss: (1) Defendants have notice of the claims and the grounds on which they rest; and (2) the allegations suggest that Plaintiff has a right to relief. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs first claim is therefore denied. [Motion to dismiss denied.]