Zimpapers Logo

Fidelis Munyoro Chief Court Reporter
AN HIV positive woman is suing her former employer, St Anne’s Hospital, for $30 000 after she was allegedly forced to disclose her status before being arbitrarily fired.
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was diagnosed with HIV in 2003 while she was employed at Avenues Clinic as a nurse. She resigned from work three years later when her condition deteriorated.

However, her condition improved in 2010 and she secured a job with St Anne’s Hospital. But the hospital fired her after a disciplinary hearing convicted her of failing to disclose her health condition in August last year.

She was brought before a disciplinary hearing after she suffered a stroke in September the previous year.
The case, which has now spilled into the Constitutional Court, also highlights the need to prevent a social backlash after a person discloses her HIV status.

The woman has listed her former employer, St Anne’s Hospital, CAPS Holdings, National Employment Council for Welfare and Education as respondents.
She wants the court to declare the hospital’s conduct in requiring her to disclose her health condition unconstitutional. She also wants the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the hospital relating to her failure to disclose her health condition set aside.

In that respect, the woman is demanding US$30 000 as constitutional damages for violating her privacy and dignity and the inhuman and degrading treatment she suffered.

“It is apparent from the record of the disciplinary hearing that the proceedings were designed to probe and compel me to disclose my medical condition,” said the woman who is being represented by Advocate Fadzayi Mahere instructed by Mr Tawanda Chakabva of Kwenda and Associates.

Women in Law in Southern Africa Zimbabwe are sponsoring the case.
“The respondent (hospital) did not have any evidence which it led about my suffering from any other specific illness, but made allegations that I suffered from an immune-suppressive condition and had opportunistic infections, glaringly suggestive to members of the disciplinary committee that I have HIV.”

She said the conduct of the hospital subjected her to stigmatisation resulting in her workmates who were not privy to her medical condition becoming aware of her status and some deliberately avoided any social communication with her, thus complicating her work relations.

“The respondent’s conduct grossly humiliated and degraded me in the eyes of fellow employees and society, as I was charged, prosecuted and dismissed from employment for not disclosing a condition which at law I am under no obligation to disclose,” she said.

The hospital denied the allegations saying the constitutional application was a clear abuse of the court process and ought to be dismissed with costs.
It said it never disclosed the woman’s confidential communication to any one. The woman said the hospital voluntarily disclosed the information in fulfilment of the dictates of the employment process and relationship.

“Recruitment is a process and certain disclosures are made by either party prior to engagements,” said the hospital in its response to the application.
“It would be naïve for an employee who takes confidential disclosures during the employment process as a violation of rights.”