Leonel V. American Airlines, Inc.: A Case Study

In the case of “Leonel v. American Airlines, Inc. (AA), 400 F.3d 702 (9th Cir.2005)” (Melvin, 2013), on page 351 of The Legal Environment of Business: a Managerial Approach: Theory to Practice, “Leonel and two other applicants were given conditional offers of employment by American Airlines.” (Melvin, 2013); these offers were dependent on whether a background check and medical exam were passed. However, before the background checks could be conducted American Airlines directed Leonel and the other applicants to go to their facility and take medical exams and a health questionnaire. “Leonel and the other applicants were HIV-positive” (Melvin, 2013) and failed to divulge this on their questionnaires. The applicants’ tests came back HIV positive and resulted in AA retracting their offer. This leads “Leonel and

the other applicants to file a law suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)” (Melvin, 2013) against AA for premature medical examination. First, they went to trial court which ruled on behalf of AA. However, they appealed that and went back to court, which resulted in a reversal of the trial court decision and ultimately ruled in favor of Leonel. The Court of Appeals stated that the medical exams were in fact premature and AA’s reasons were an invalid argument (that they needed to conduct early testing to be a step ahead of their competition).
There are several problems with this case.

First, being that the company knew better than to test early regardless of trying to beat their competition. James 4:17 (NIV), states that, “If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.” Therefore, they knowingly sinned. The applicants also sinned by lying about their health information. Had they maybe indulged that information, an offer may still have been made because they had told the truth. A question still arises if whether American Airlines had tested everyone they hire for HIV? I thought employers could only test for drugs and alcohol for a job. It is my understanding that it would become discrimination at that point if being declined a job because of someone’s diagnosis. Having HIV in no way effects Leonel’s ability to perform the job he is applying for so it is irrelevant. Even if Leonel was having some difficulties with his HIV, if AA did not discriminate and hired him, they then would have to provide reasonable accommodations as stated in the ADA regulations. Under the Disability Rights Questions and Answers Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, it

states:
An employer may condition a job offer on the satisfactory result of a post-offer medical examination or medical inquiry if this is required of all entering employees in the same job category. However, if an individual is not hired because a post-offer medical examination or inquiry reveals a disability, the reason(s) for not hiring must be job-related and consistent with business necessity. HIV-positive status alone, without some accompanying complication (e.g., dementia, loss of vision, etc.) can almost never be the basis for a refusal to hire after a post-offer medical examination.
This is exactly why the Court of Appeals had ruled in favor of Leonel. He was discriminated against regarding his disability, not that he couldn’t fulfill the job description or its duties. As Matthew 7:12 (NIV) states, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” One should not discriminate upon anyone because “the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” (Samuel 16:7, NIV) It is also said in Romans 2:11 (NIV) that “God does not show favoritism” or partiality. It is a sin to discriminate and one should refrain greatly from doing so. This is a huge problem in this day and age, not just in the workplace but in general.
Medical tests should only be performed after all nonmedical tests are accepted because they are not the main deciding factor for employment. The deciding factors should be whether an employee can perform the essential job functions set forth in the interview and employment advertisement. It is discriminatory to base an applicant’s employment solely on their medical records. The tests should also be conducted for “all prospective employees and may not be used to target those with disabilities” (Melvin, 2013).
The court determined that AA had not presented a true conditional offer of employment because AA prematurely tested the applicants before all other testing had been performed; this goes against the ADA regulations. In order to present a conditionally offer contingent upon medical examination all other testing must be completed first. Therefore, a true offer would not have been valid until all nonmedical testing was performed first.  
References
http://www.ada.gov/archive/hivqanda.txt
The Holy Bible, NIV. 2013. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Melvin, S. P. (2015). The Legal Envorinment of Business: A Managerial Approach: Theory to Practice. New York: McGraw Hill.