Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 669

524US2

Unit: $U96

[09-15-00 14:39:49] PAGES PGT: OPIN

624

OCTOBER TERM, 1997

Syllabus

BRAGDON v. ABBOTT et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the first circuit

No. 97–156. Argued March 30, 1998—Decided June 25, 1998

Respondent Abbott is infected with the human immunodeﬁciency virus
(HIV), but had not manifested its most serious symptoms when the inci-
dents in question occurred. At that time, she went to petitioner’s ofﬁce
for a dental examination and disclosed her HIV infection. Petitioner
discovered a cavity and informed respondent of his policy against ﬁlling
cavities of HIV-infected patients in his ofﬁce. He offered to perform
the work at a hospital at no extra charge, though respondent would have
to pay for use of the hospital’s facilities. She declined and ﬁled suit
under, inter alia, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA),
which prohibits discrimination against any individual “on the basis of
disability in the . . . enjoyment of the . . . services . . . of any place of
public accommodation by any person who . . . operates [such] a place,” 42
U. S. C. § 12182(a), but qualiﬁes the prohibition by providing: “Nothing
[herein] shall require an entity to permit an individual to participate
in or beneﬁt from the . . . accommodations of such entity where such
individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others,”
§ 12182(b)(3). The District Court granted respondent summary judg-
ment. The First Circuit afﬁrmed, agreeing with the lower court that
respondent’s HIV was a disability under the ADA even though her in-
fection had not yet progressed to the symptomatic stage, and that treat-
ing her in petitioner’s ofﬁce would not have posed a direct threat to the
In making the latter ruling, the court re-
health and safety of others.
lied on the 1993 Dentistry Guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) and on the 1991 American Dental Association
Policy on HIV.

Held:

1. Even though respondent’s HIV infection had not progressed to the
so-called symptomatic phase, it was a “disability” under § 12102(2)(A),
that is, “a physical . . . impairment that substantially limits one or more
of [an individual’s] major life activities.” Pp. 630–647.

(a) The ADA deﬁnition is drawn almost verbatim from deﬁnitions
applicable to § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and another federal
statute. Because the ADA expressly provides that “nothing [herein]
shall be construed to apply a lesser standard than . . . under . . . the
Rehabilitation Act . . . or the regulations issued . . . pursuant to [it],”