Discrimination in Holiday v City of Chattanooga

Discrimination in Holiday v City of Chattanooga

Instructions/Descriptions

Discrimination in Holiday v City of Chattanooga

Holiday v. City of Chattanooga, 206 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. 2000)

Holiday brought suit against the City of Chattanooga under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reason being is that the city refused to hire him as a police officer due to having the disease human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). This virus causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome  (AIDS). In 1993 Holiday applied for the City as a police officer. He passed all the exams and completed a physical agility test in 1993. The test was comprised of endurance, strength, jumping, running, and an obstacle course. Holiday had an interview with the City in 1994 and was offered a conditional offer of employment subject that Holiday passes a physical and psychological examination. It is required by Tennessee law that all applicants pass the physical that is given by a licensed physician. Holiday was seen by Memorial Hospital in Chattanooga in which this facility is contracted by the City. The City does not test for HIV or AIDS and there is no policy requiring that a person must test negative for HIV. During the physical exam Holiday voluntarily advised he has HIV and has been diagnosed with borderline anemic and was told by the physician that he passed the exam.

[Order Now]

However, once the exam was completed the officer called the City and advised them that Holiday did not pass the physical exam. In the report the physician stated that Holiday is not physically fit due to being anemic and having HIV and was not strong enough to withstand the severities of police work. The City informed Holiday that due to the physicians report they are withdrawing their conditional offer due to no passing the physical exam.

[Order Now]

The Sixth circuit court reversed summary in favor of the City in which they rejected the argument by the City which stated that Holiday was not fit for the job due to having HIV. The City relies on generalized decisions about the effect of HIV could have on job performance. The employer should conduct an analysis on the individual’s medical condition to see how it would impact their job performance, if any. The physician did not provide any evidence that Holiday had experienced physical weakness but only stated that Holiday was HIV positive and was no strong enough for the job. Holiday provided evidence that he was fit for the job and has served as a police officer without any issues in another agency after being denied by the City.

Yes I agree with the conclusion that the City went against the Americans with Disabilities Act when they withdrew the conditional offer based off what the physician said. Holiday was voluntarily informed the physician he was HIV positive but has no effect on his job performance. The physician did not have a relevant statement as to why Holiday was no qualified for the job. There is nothing stated that the applicant has to test negative for HIV.

Discrimination in Holiday v City of Chattanooga

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!