ARTICLE #1:

FILIPINOS WITH HIV SUFFER FROM WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION

Rhodina Villanueva (The Philippine Star) - February 10, 2018 - 12:00am

MANILA, Philippines — the group Human Rights Watch (HRW) said workers and
employees in the Philippines living with HIV who suffer workplace discrimination often do
not seek redress.

HRW said workplace discrimination in the Philippines includes refusal to hire, unlawful
firing, and forced resignation of people with HIV. Some employers may also disregard or
actively facilitate workplace harassment of employees who are HIV positive.

In most of the discrimination cases the group had documented, employees with HIV did
not file formal complaints, mostly owing to fear of being further exposed as an HIV patient
that could disrupt future employment.

“The Philippines faces a double whammy of increasing HIV infection and fears by workers
with HIV that they can’t seek justice if they are discriminated against on the job. The
government needs to ensure that people living with HIV get better protection in their jobs
and that the public gets more and better information on HIV,” said Carlos Conde,
Philippines researcher at Human Rights Watch.

The Philippines has the fastest-growing HIV infection rate in the Asia-Pacific region.

The number of new cases in the Philippines of HIV, which causes AIDS, jumped from
only four a day in 2010 to 31 a day as of November 2017. From just 117 cases a decade
ago, the total number of HIV cases as of last November is 49,733, an overwhelming
majority of which – 41,369, or 83 percent – were reported in the past five years alone.

Most new infections, up to 83 percent according to the government, occur among men or
transgender women who have sex with men.
The increase prompted the government to declare a “national emergency” in August
2017. The epidemic is fueled by an environment hostile to policies and programs proven
to help prevent HIV transmission. Government policies create obstacles to access to
condoms and HIV testing and limit educational efforts on HIV prevention.

Conde said the Philippines has strong laws on HIV/AIDS law, which criminalizes
workplace discrimination against people living with HIV but the government is adequately
enforcing the laws to prevent and punish workplace discrimination.

The extent of workplace discrimination is difficult to ascertain, HRW said.

“Government agencies authorized to investigate and prosecute violations of the HIV/AIDS

discrimination laws do not maintain a database of cases and rely almost exclusively on
nongovernmental organizations such as Action for Health Initiatives (ACHIEVE) and
Pinoy Plus, which only have databases of people seeking their services.”

Source: https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/02/10/1786449/filipinos-hiv-suffer-
workplace-discrimination
ARTICLE #2:

SOUTH AFRICAN AIRWAYS LAWSUIT (RE HIV DISCRIMINATION)

In 2000, Jacques Hoffmann, a prospective employee of South African Airways (SAA),

filed a lawsuit in the Witwatersrand High Court, South Africa, against SAA, a subsidiary
of the state-owned Transnet Corporation. Hoffmann alleged that SAA’s employment
practices were unconstitutional. He had been refused employment as an airline cabin
attendant after compulsory medical examinations found him HIV-positive. The plaintiff
argued that SAA’s refusal to employ him violated his constitutional right to equality,
human dignity and fair labor practices.

SAA argued that its employment policy required SAA to exclude from employment as
cabin attendants all persons who are found to be HIV-positive. SAA maintained that in
the course of employment, cabin attendants must be vaccinated against yellow fever; and
that HIV-positive people may react negatively to this vaccine and may not take it. Thus,
the company argued, they could contract yellow fever and other opportunistic diseases,
which could later be transmitted to others. The company also argued that the life
expectancy of people who are HIV-positive was too short to warrant the costs of training
them. Finally, SAA underlined that other major airlines employed similar practices.

The High Court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that SAA’s employment practice was based
on considerations of medical necessity, safety and operational procedure. It also ruled
that if SAA was compelled to hire people living with HIV as cabin attendants it would be
seriously disadvantaged against its competitors.

Mr. Hoffmann appealed the decision before the Constitutional Court of South Africa on
18 August 2000. On appeal, it was a thorough insight into the medical evidence that
changed the course of the arguments. SAA was confronted by a consensus among all
medical experts, including those that it had instructed, on the nature of HIV, including the
ability of HIV-positive people to be vaccinated against yellow fever. SAA then conceded
that its employment practice was unfair. Justice Ngcobo ruled that SAA had infringed
plaintiff’s constitutional rights not to be unfairly discriminated against. He underlined that
only HIV-positive people who are at the immunosuppressed stage pose those risks
alleged by the company. The plaintiff was not immunosuppressed, either at the time he
applied for the position of cabin attendant or when he brought the suit. The judgment
held that, while legitimate commercial requirements are important, they cannot serve to
disguise stereotyping and prejudice. It also held that people with HIV, as one of the most
disadvantaged groups in society, deserve special protection from the law. The Supreme
Court ordered SAA to make an offer of employme-nt immediately to the plaintiff and to
pay his legal costs.

Source: https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/south-african-airways-lawsuit-re-hiv-
discrimination

CONTRAST
COMPARE
Philippines South Africa
o Affect negatively on o Unlawful firing, and o It is the leading
forced resignation of cause of death
both the people with HIV
people with HIV in amongst
and people around jobs. adolescents.
o Criminalizes o The SAA has
them.
workplace employment policy
o Men and transgender discrimination requiring SAA to
against people living exclude from
were mostly the targets.
with HIV and employment as cabin
o Employment refusal to government is attendants all
adequately enforcing persons who are
HIV-positive.
the laws to prevent found to be HIV-
and punish positive, but the High
workplace Court dismissed the
discrimination. lawsuit.