SW7London

UK Disability Discrimination Act 2005 prohibts employer from firing an employee because they are HIV positive.

The law takes precedence over any terms/conditions of the contract.

I'm assuming QF took legal advice regarding this matter, nonetheless if I was the employee concerned I too would be taking legal advise of my own.

Given the number of QF staff that go to/from/transit DXB I'd be surprised if there wasnt others who are HIV positive. Just like any large company, a certain small % of staff would be HIV positive.

m0hamed

Probably more so given the disproportionate number of LGBTQIA+ staff.

TominLazybrook

While, I've seen zero reporting on this in the press (even the LGBT press), this story is plausible. http://www.hivtravel.org/Default.asp...&CountryId=189 details the situation for HIV+ persons by country.

This, if true, would be huge news, in the UK and Australia. Basically, if unresolved, the flag carrier of Australia is not providing service to HIV+ persons if they do the DXB alliance.

There was some discussion of this when Qantas moved from SIN to DXB. Not that Singapore is much/any better. At the time Qantas assured the public that there would be no problems.

I think if Qantas fired the employee, especially in an attempt to placate the authorities in the UAE, then it would be a serious issue for many. No idea if that is true.

I'll wait to see if this makes the press. If true, it should. BTW, Qantas actually issued a letter to a politician in Australia arguing that this type of thing would never happen to flight crew. http://www.traveldaily.com.au/news/q...surance/151677

I'd imagine that the QF FA union would be quite interested in this as well.

The bigger problem is that just about every place that Qantas can transfer from either has a ban on HIV+ persons or criminalizes (and enforces said ban) being Gay. India, Singapore, UAE, etc. Oddly enough (outside of Thailand), Bahrain of all places, at least from a legal standpoint, appears to be best on this.

Interesting story and one that bears watching. I'll wait till I see real reporting on it though. I promise you reporters would be interested in this story.

Dave Noble

The law would permit the termination of a contract where provisions such as having visas necessary to perform the role

No different to if a driver lost a driving licence and the licence was a requirement of a role

I doubt very much that QF just did it for an invalid reason such as just wanting to keep a govt happy

ButFli

There are exceptions in that law for when an employee is unable to meet an "occupational requirement". It is an occupational requirement for Qantas's UK-based crew to fly to Dubai, as that is the only destination served from the UK. An HIV+ person is unable to do that because of the law of the UAE. Therefore, they do not meet an occupational requirement and it may be legal to terminate their employment for that reason.

There is an equivalent under Australian anti-discrimination law. There was a case involving Qantas that went to the High Court, involving international pilots being forced to retire at age 60. Under Australian law, that would be illegal because it is age discrimination. Except that many of the destinations that Qantas serves are in countries where the law says pilots must be under 60. Flying to those destinations is an inherent requirement of being a Qantas international pilot. Pilots over 60 are unable to do it, so it is legal for Qantas to terminate their employment based on that.

sxc

I would expect there are other QF FA who are HIV+. I don't know if it is a requirement to declare your status when you join as a cabin crew. The difference in this case (if facts are true) is that the HIV status was discovered/uncovered while in Dubai hence QF can't plead ignorance that this person is breaking the law.

QF are also stuck in a PR rocky hard place because they don't want to be seen as discriminating but they also don't want to declare that they have m/any FAs with HIV for fear of upsetting that ignorant portion of the customer base who think they will "catch" it.

fa1980999

This flight attendant was drastically ill in Dubai when he received his initial hiv diagnosis. I know he was advised that family should travel to the hospital asap due to the severity of his condition. By all accounts, you do not want to be diagnosed hiv+ in Dubai, you are treated as though you have an infectious condition such as Ebola. The medical team in his hospital though, did have strong concerns for his welfare and worried he would be forcibly removed to a government hospital/detention centre. In light of this, they advised that he should leave the country asap. So he was discharged a walking skeleton and Qantas did get him on the first flight back to UK, albeit with no other support before or after being on the aircraft. There are a number of events after this point that conspired to his termination by Qantas. Both the UK and Australian media are aware of the full facts and are considering all the legal ramifications before pursuing any print story.

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

Unfortunately it sounds like there are a range of potential complications not just from the termination of employment, but also on a personal level. This includes, by the sound of it, undiagnosed HIV, the length of time it may have been undiagnosed, and the impact this may have had on any current or previous partner(s).

A sad series of events for all involved.

m0hamed

That's a terrible situation, however one assumes they received treatment as soon as they arrived in the U.K. which would have immediate effect.

He is very lucky the medical team did not alert authorities. He would 100% have been detained in jail without treatment.

sxc

I don't want to diminish the severity of the situation, but typically a person newly diagnosed with HIV can be severely ill (fever, weak etc), but won't be withered to a skeleton so this part is a bit of hyperbole. If they were that frail they wouldn't have been able to sign on for duty in London.

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

I wondered about this too... but the OP doesn't say how long the FA spent in hospital... it could have been weeks. The OP also doesn't say this was newly acquired, it's possible the FA could have been HIV positive for many years and been undiagnosed. If this hospitalisation was after many years it could well have been serious, with a long stay.

Hence my post that this may have complications beyond the FA's termination... there could be a parter(s) also at risk.

Fa Hz

This is awful (if true)

fa1980999

The flight attendant in question suffered a particularly virulent seroconversion illness, causing ulcers in the esophagus. After 24 hours of being severely ill in Dubai, the flight attendant made his own way across Dubai to hospital where he was admitted with high fever and dehydration, he was given iv fluids and meds for the fever and discharged after 6 hours with gaviscon. He then spent a further 3 days back at the hotel, unable to eat or drink before realising his life was in danger so again took himself across town to the hospital, upon which he was immediately admitted as a medical emergency with high fever, severe dehydration which by this point had caused numerous complications to his internal organs. He was indeed discharged a walking skeleton after 6 days in hospital, as the alternative was to remain there and be forcibly removed to a UAE government detention centre. At no point during these 10 days in Dubai did the flight attendant see any member of Qantas staff or their representatives. The one upside to these events was that after his return to the UK, he was placed onto hiv anti retroviral medication within 2 months of his initial infection.

m0hamed

You don't understand seroconversion.

DownUnderFlyer

[mod hat] This is a thread in the QF forum, so please leave the discussion focused around the airline and its people. It is not the place to discuss illnesses and treatment options. [/mod hat]