Certified Regulatory Compliance Manager (CRCM) — Question 251

Bob's wife is HIV-positive due to a blood transfusion during an appendectomy 15 years ago. She is not yet sick, but takes medication to prevent the onset of AIDS.
Bob occasionally needs to take time off from work to take her for testing at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. Because of complaints about Bob's exposure to this disease, employees have asked HR to limit his contact with them and with customers. The bank has asked Bob not to eat in the lunchroom with the other employees and has placed Bob in a position where he has limited customer contact. Does this company have any potential ADA liability?

Answer options

• A. No. Bob's exposure to HIV could endanger other employees and customers
• B. No. Because the hiring manager does not know that Bob actually has HIV or AIDS, there is no liability
• C. Yes. Because the manager has associated Bob with this disease, the "associated with" rule applies
• D. Yes. Because the manager has regarded Bob as having a disability, he has been "regarded as" disabled and the ADA applies

Correct answer: D

Explanation

The correct answer is D because the manager's perception of Bob as having a disability due to his association with HIV can be considered as 'regarded as' disabled under the ADA. Options A and B incorrectly suggest that Bob's potential exposure or the manager's ignorance of his status absolves the company of liability. Option C is also incorrect as it does not fully encompass the 'regarded as' aspect that applies in this scenario.