HIV as a direct threat to others: Bringing policy in LINE with the objective medical evidence

From the beginning, the HIV/AIDS epidemic has been rife with stigma and stereotypes, which have failed to evolve with treatment and public health statistics. Although people with HIV/AIDS are protected from discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), cases of unlawful discrimination still occur. Judicial standards are inconsistent with the objective medical evidence, creating an environment ripe for discrimination based on the “direct threat” posed by individuals with HIV/AIDS. The purpose of this work is to analyze the existing ADA case law and objective evidence to establish the appropriate usage of the “direct threat” defense in cases of discrimination based on HIV status. The ADA and relevant federal cases were reviewed to track the progression of the legal treatment of HIV/AIDS as a direct threat to others. These findings were compared to medical treatment advances and public health statistics regarding HIV/AIDS transmission to determine whether the legal treatment is consistent with objective medical evidence. Judicial interpretations of the “direct threat” provision of the ADA are inconsistent and rely on outdated medical evidence, which leaves open the possibility for actual discrimination against individuals with HIV/AIDS. Based on the current medical evidence, HIV/AIDS status alone does not pose a direct threat to others. In order to prevent discrimination, the courts should recognize the current medical evidence and prohibit use of the “direct threat” defense in cases where the individual has HIV/AIDS.