The court’s decision was accurate as protected classes of people must be protected unless the employer can present clear reasons as to why accommodations cannot be made for the individual. Tuberculosis is absolutely a serious disease that must be monitored, but the school board laid out no attempt at a strategy for how they could mitigate the risk, choosing rather to simply make a judgment that they refused to reconsider. It is not the employee’s job to advocate for and create accommodations but rather on the employer to identify an option. Let’s draw this question to a wider scope. Who is to determine what should be considered a contagious disease? Could someone not determine that a pregnant individual, while not directly contagious, presents a scenario that is not wanted in the workplace? Some might say that comparison is farfetched, but let’s push forward with it first before we determine that. If that is considered the case, pregnancy could have an impact on the workflow of the company and as such, any individual that could potentially be pregnant should not continue to be employed by the company. That would be a direct violation of the same laws at question in the above court case. While the pregnancy disability act does speak directly to pregnancy, it also provides a blueprint for which other medical scenarios and disabilities come into play in creating accommodations (Ziegler, 2019). In reference to HIV/AIDS, each individual may need to be evaluated separately to determine if they qualify as a handicapped individual. If they do, then they absolutely should have this protection. Furthermore, each state’s employment laws would need to be evaluated as to whether or not an individual having HIV/AIDS, even if not a qualifying handicap, poses any risk to the public and therefore could or could not be used as the only reason for dismissal. So no, this researcher does not think that changing the condition to HIV/AIDS should make a difference in the judgement.
To the second question, this should have been analyzed by the school board in an attempt to create accommodations from the get go, therefore, yes, this researcher believes that if an alternate position exists, then the teacher should be offered that opportunity. Myth and misconception are an active part of society and fiction novels, in fact, one might say that is the point where the two worlds collide. The issue becomes how to educate and whether an individual will change their opinion when a myth is treated as fact. This researcher believes the court did protect the employee and the public in this case as in protecting a protected class, they are protecting the rights of each and every citizen. It is not the court’s obligation to educate the public, but in consistently upholding the constitution and this nation’s laws, they are providing the precedent necessary to allow individuals that wish to become more knowledgeable to be able to differentiate between the mystical unicorn and the horse that is actually in front of them.
References
Ziegler, M. (2019). Choice at work: Young v. United States Parcel Service, pregnancy discrimination, and Reproductive Liberty. SSRN Electronic Journal.
