Horgan V Simmons United States- District Case
Added on - 16 Sep 2019
Trusted by +2 million users,
1000+ happy students everyday
1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 1 of 3 pages
H ORGAN V . SIMMONS U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT C OURT FOR THE N ORTHERN D ISTRICT OFI LLINOIS 704 F. SUPP . 2 D 814 (N.D.I LL . 2010).[Kenneth Horgan alleged in his complaint that he was HIV positive and kept his status confidential untilhis supervisor pressed him about his medical condition. When he told the supervisor of his condition, hewas terminated the next day. Horgan claimed that he was unlawfully terminated because of hisdisability under the ADA. The court ’ s decision set forth here deals with the employer ’ s motion todismiss 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 statusconfidential, disclosing his medical condition only to his close friends. In February 2001, he beganworking for Morgan, a linen and uniform rental services company, as a sales manager in Los Angeles. InJanuary 2008, Defendants promoted him to General Manager of the Chicago facility. Plaintiff claims thathis HIV positive status never interfered with his ability to perform the essential functions of his job andthat he “ has always met or exceeded Morgan ’ s legitimate expectations. ” Specifically, in 2009, Plaintiffclaims 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, Plaintiffalleges that Simmons asked to meet with him for what Simmons termed a “ social visit. ” During theirvisit, Plaintiff alleges that Simmons “ told plaintiff that he was really worried about him. ” When Plaintiffresponded by discussing his work performance, Plain-tiff claims that Simmons cut him off saying “ this isnot about results. ” Plaintiff alleges that Simmons then “ demanded ” to know what was going on withhim, telling Plaintiff that “ if there was something medical going on, he needed to know. ” Plaintiffinsisted that there was nothing that affected his ability to work. However, Plaintiff claims that Simmonscontinued to insist there was something physical or mental that was affecting Plaintiff. ” Plaintiff claimhe was “ compelled to tell Simmons that he was HIV positive, ” but he assured Simmons that his statusdid 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 undercontrol and that his T-cell count was over 300. ” Next, Plaintiff alleges that Simmons asked “ what wouldhappen if his T-cell count went below 200, ” and Plaintiff replied that he would then have AIDS. Afterurging Plaintiff to inform his family about his condition, Plaintiff alleges that Simmons asked him “ howhe could ever perform his job with his HIV positive condition and how he could continue to work with aterminal illness. ” Additionally, Plaintiff claims that Simmons told him “ that a General Manager needs tobe respected by the employees and have the ability to lead, ” and indicated that he “ did not know howPlaintiff could lead if the employees knew about his condition. ” Simmons allegedly ended the meetingby telling Plaintiff that he needed “ to recover ” and that he should “ go on vacation ” and “ leave theplant immediately. ” Simmons then told Plaintiff that he would discuss the situation with Morgan ’ s .Thenext day, Plaintiff alleges that he received a copy of an email sent to all general managers and corporatestaff indicating that “ effective immediately ” Plaintiff was “ no longer a member of Morgan . ” ...