Reference no: EM131743652
Case Scenario: DISCRIMINATION IN THE COMMUNITY
The plaintiff Adam Doe claimed that the defendants, Deer Mountain Day Camp, Inc. (DMDC) and Deer Mountain Basketball Academy (DMBA), discriminated against him by denying him admission to a basketball camp on the basis of his disability, an HIV infection, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-213 (2000) ("ADA") and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYHRL), N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290-301 (2004) ("NYHRL"). Adam had contracted HIV at birth due to a perinatal infection. He took antiretroviral medications to treat his condition, and his syndrome has been undetectable for years. On the advice of Dr. Neu, Adam's HIV specialist, Adam and his mother had kept and continued to keep Adam's HIV-seropositivity confidential. Adam liked to play basketball, and in 2004, his HIV clinic recommended that he attend a basketball camp. Mrs. Doe had been notified that the camp was unable to make reasonable accommodations for Adam and, as a consequence, they could not allow him to attend DMBA.
According to Mrs. Doe, she was told that Adam could potentially transmit HIV through blood in his urine or in his stool. Mrs. Doe denied that Adam had problems with bloody stool or urine. Mrs. Doe, however, was told that DMBA could not accept Adam. She later received a refund of Adam's admission fees. The plaintiff brings this action for violations of Title III of the ADA and the NYHRL, arguing that the defendants unlawfully discriminated against him on the basis of his disability, i.e., his HIV-seropositivity, by excluding him from participation in the basketball camp. To redress his injuries, including emotional and psychological harm, Adam requested declaratory, compensatory, and injunctive relief, as well as attorney's fees and costs. Both parties made motions for summary judgment. The defendants failed to present any evidence of the objective reasonableness of their determination that the plaintiff's condition posed a threat to other campers. In their cross motions for summary judgment, the parties placed before the court the issues of whether HIV-seropositivity qualifies as a "disability" and whether defendants' denial of admission constitutes discrimination "on the basis of" that disability. The plaintiff's motion argued that the defendants conclusively qualify as "public accommodations," thus prohibiting them from engaging in such discrimination. The United States District Court, S.D. of New York, granted the plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment of ADA and NYHRL declaratory relief, as to DMDC's discrimination "on the basis of" Adam's disability, and denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
Ethical and Legal Issues
1. Since Adam's HIV syndrome has been undetectable for years, discuss why you agree or disagree with the basketball camp's decision to revoke Adam's registration.
2. Do you agree with the court's ruling? Discuss your answer.