Horgan v. Simmons ADA Case Study

This case study presents the legal analysis of Horgan v. Simmons, a case involving a claim of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiff, Kenneth Horgan, alleged that he was terminated from his position after disclosing his HIV-positive status to his supervisor. The court examined whether Horgan's condition met the definition of disability under the ADA, particularly in light of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. The analysis focuses on whether Horgan's HIV status substantially limited a major life activity, specifically the function of his immune system, and whether he was regarded as having an impairment by his employer. The court ultimately denied the employer's motion to dismiss, finding that Horgan's allegations were sufficient to plausibly suggest a violation of the ADA. The case study also includes questions for further analysis, prompting a deeper understanding of the legal concepts involved.

H ORGAN V . SIMMONS U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT C OURT FOR THE N ORTHERN D ISTRICT OF
I 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 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, Plain-tiff 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 claim
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 .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 dis-ability. 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 the 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 dis ability sufficient to state an actionable ADA claim.
This Court disagrees. Drawing all inferences in Plain-tiffs 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 per-son 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. ” * 1 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 Plain-tiffs first claim is therefore denied.
[Motion to dismiss denied.]
Case Questions
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 a shaving such an impairment ” ? *
***** - FOOT NOTES AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE
Further, although Plaintiff does not argue it in his brief, the com-plaint also establishes a disability under
the third definition set forth by the ADA because he was regarded as having an impairment. “ An
individual meets the requirement of ‘ being regarded as having such an impairment ’ if the individual
establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under [the ADA] because of an
actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived
to limit a major life activity. ” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A). Here, Plaintiff alleges that when he told Simmons
that he was HIV positive, Simmons asked “ how [Plaintiff]could ever perform his job with his HIV positive
condition and how he could continue to work with a terminal illness. ” In addition, Simmons allegedly
told Plaintiff that “ a General Manager needs to be respected by the employees and have the ability to
lead ” and that Simmons “ did not know how [Plaintiff] could lead if the employees knew about his
condition. ” The next day, Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated. This Court finds that such allegations
are sufficient to plausibly suggest that Plaintiff was terminated because Defendants regarded his HIV
positive status as an impairment.