“So exactly why do you need those four days of leave?” Your supervisors may ask such questions, perhaps out of curiosity or because they’re the ones who must approve FMLA requests. But as this ruling shows, asking the wrong questions—and then divulging that confidential medical info—can quickly turn into a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

That’s because the ADA prohibits employers from “making inquiries of an employee as to whether such employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature and severity of the disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.” The ADA also says all medical information must be collected on separate forms, kept in separate files and treated as confidential.

Case in Point: “John Doe,” a credit-company employee, was diagnosed with HIV and needed to have his blood drawn regularly. Doe was written up by his supervisor for missing work to attend medical appointments.

Once when he needed four days of leave for doctor’s appointments, Doe didn’t want to approach his direct supervisor, fearing that he’d gossip about Doe’s HIV status. So Doe approached another supervisor, Danny Dunson, to approve a schedule-change accommodation.

Dunson demanded to know Doe’s specific diagnosis. He pressed him, stating, “I have to know why actually to accommodate you when other people are coming and asking for accommodations and I am turning them down. Why am I going to give you an accommodation?”

Doe replied that his condition was “confidential and stigmatizing.” But Dunson pressed on, demanding to know “what’s going on.” Doe eventually revealed his HIV diagnosis to Dunson. It didn’t take long for word to spread.

Dunson told Doe’s immediate supervisor, apparently because the direct supervisor wanted to know exactly why Doe was no longer on the regular schedule. As Doe feared, his direct supervisor soon disclosed his HIV diagnosis to a handful of his co-workers.

Doe complained. An HR investigation determined that the supervisor breached Doe’s right to confidentiality. Doe claimed he suffered shame, embarrassment and depression as a result of the workplace gossip.

Doe sued under the ADA, claiming the company made unlawful inquiries into his medical condition and wrongfully disclosed his confidential medical diagnosis. The company argued that it did nothing wrong, saying Doe volunteered the information and there was no “sustainable injury” caused to Doe when the information was divulged. (EEOC v. Ford Motor Credit Company, 1/14/08)

How did this case end ... and what three lessons can be learned?