|
We're no attorneys, but surely this flies in the face of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the federal Rehabilitation Act. Details of "Richard Roe's" case after the jump.
In 2006, Roe applied to be a police officer in Atlanta. During a pre-employment medical exam the doctor found out that he was HIV-positive, to which the doctor told Roe that his status disqualified him from becoming a police officer with the Atlanta Police Department (APD). Roe filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the City of Atlanta for discrimination based on federal and state law.
During the ruling against Roe, the city contradicted itself saying that being HIV-positive doesn't disqualify someone from becoming a police officer and that HIV-positive officers are a "direct threat" to the health, safety and ignorance, err, prejuidice, uh, (there we go again) of others.
And as we all know, when our civil rights are being marred we call ACLU or Lambda Legal.
Late Tuesday, Lambda Legal completed briefing in its appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for Roe citing: "There was no good reason to deny our client this opportunity. People living with HIV are serving as police officers all across the country; they are involved in every kind of work and participate in all walks of life," said Scott Schoettes, Lambda Legal's HIV Project Director.
You're in good hands now, Roe.
(via Queerty and The Seattle Lesbian)
 |
