1) Introduction: Why “Health History” Discrimination Matters

Employment decisions often depend on an applicant’s or worker’s ability to perform job functions safely and effectively. But when employers treat past or present health conditions as a blanket disqualifier—without job-related justification, individualized assessment, or reasonable adjustments—discrimination risks arise. “Health history” can include medical diagnoses (past or current), prior hospitalization, chronic illness, mental health conditions, disability, genetic predispositions, reproductive health history, HIV status, tuberculosis history, cancer survivorship, medication use, and similar medical information.

In the Philippine context, legal protection comes from a layered framework: the Constitution; statutes such as the Labor Code, the Magna Carta for Persons with Disability, the Anti-Age Discrimination Act, and data privacy law; administrative regulations and DOLE issuances; and, for public sector workers, civil service rules. Protections can also come from contractual obligations (CBAs, company policies) and international commitments that shape interpretation.

This article explains the legal landscape, what employers may and may not do, how to evaluate whether discrimination has occurred, and how workers can pursue remedies.

2) Constitutional Foundations

2.1 Equal Protection and Due Process

The Constitution’s equal protection principle is a broad baseline against arbitrary discrimination. While it does not list “health history” as a protected class, it supports laws and policies that prevent unjust exclusion and supports judicial scrutiny of unreasonable classifications.

2.2 Social Justice and Labor Protection

The Constitution emphasizes protection to labor and social justice. This strengthens the policy direction of labor and disability laws: work is a right and a means of livelihood, and barriers to employment should be reduced where feasible.

2.3 Right to Health and Human Dignity

Constitutional commitments to health and human dignity reinforce the idea that a person’s medical condition should be handled with respect, confidentiality, and fairness—especially where the condition does not prevent performance of essential job duties.

3) Core Statutory Protections Relevant to Health-History Discrimination

3.1 Labor Code and General Labor Standards

The Labor Code and related labor statutes establish standards for fair treatment, security of tenure, and just causes for termination. Even where discrimination is not explicitly named, actions taken “because of” health history can still be illegal if they violate due process, security of tenure, or constitute unfair labor practices in union contexts.

Key practical implications:

Termination must be for a just or authorized cause and must observe procedural due process.
Employers must not use health history as a pretext for illegal dismissal.
Medical unfitness can justify certain actions only when it is genuine, job-related, and supported by competent evidence and proper process.

3.2 Magna Carta for Persons with Disability (PWD Law)

The Magna Carta for Persons with Disability (and amendments) is central when a health condition substantially limits one or more major life activities or otherwise falls under the legal concept of disability.

Core protections typically include:

Non-discrimination in employment: equal opportunity in hiring, promotion, training, compensation, and other terms.
Reasonable accommodation: adjustments or modifications to enable qualified persons with disability to perform essential job functions, unless it imposes undue hardship.
Accessibility and inclusion measures: policies that reduce barriers.

For “health history,” this matters because many conditions that employers consider in screening (e.g., mobility limitations, sensory impairments, chronic conditions, psychosocial disabilities) may trigger duties of non-discrimination and accommodation.

3.3 HIV and AIDS Policy

Philippine law includes specific protections for persons living with HIV. These protections generally cover:

Confidentiality of HIV status and related information.
Non-discrimination in employment and other settings.
Limits on compulsory testing and improper disclosure.

Health-history discrimination is especially sensitive here because employers may attempt to use medical exams or rumor to exclude applicants or discipline employees.

3.4 Mental Health Protection

The Philippines has a dedicated mental health framework emphasizing rights, non-discrimination, and confidentiality. In employment, this supports:

Protection from discriminatory policies targeting mental health conditions.
Privacy of mental health records.
Support for reasonable workplace measures consistent with safety and job requirements.

3.5 Data Privacy Act (Medical Information as Sensitive Personal Information)

The Data Privacy Act classifies health-related data as sensitive personal information, which receives higher protection.

Implications for employers:

Collection must be legitimate, necessary, and proportionate (data minimization).
Processing must have a legal basis and meet transparency requirements.
Security safeguards must be in place.
Access must be restricted (need-to-know).
Retention must be limited; disposal must be secure.
Employees have rights to be informed, access, correction, and, in certain contexts, objection or redress.

In practice, even if an employer claims a health-history decision is “not discrimination,” violations of data privacy rules (e.g., overbroad medical questionnaires, public disclosure of medical conditions, gossip-enabled HR practices) can create independent liability.

3.6 Safe Spaces Act / Anti-Sexual Harassment (Health-Related Harassment)

If health history becomes a basis for ridicule, hostile treatment, or harassment (e.g., mocking a condition, pregnancy-related shaming, HIV stigma), anti-harassment and safe workplace rules can be implicated. While not purely “health-history discrimination,” harassment is often the mechanism by which health-based bias manifests.

3.7 Expanded Maternity Leave and Reproductive Health-Related Protections

Health history overlaps with reproductive health and pregnancy. Although “health history” isn’t the label used, adverse treatment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions can be actionable through labor standards and anti-discrimination principles embedded in protective labor legislation.

3.8 Anti-Age Discrimination in Employment

Age discrimination laws matter because employers sometimes use “health history” as a proxy for age. If an employer screens out applicants “because of maintenance meds,” “because of history of hypertension,” or “because of prior surgery” and the pattern correlates with older applicants, claims may implicate age discrimination.

3.9 Public Sector: Civil Service Rules and Fitness Standards

For government employment, civil service rules apply. Fitness standards exist for certain roles (e.g., uniformed service, safety-critical positions), but these generally must be administered fairly, with due process and consistent standards. Health-based exclusion still must be justified and not arbitrary.

4) When Health-Based Differentiation Is Lawful: Job-Relatedness, Safety, and Necessity

Not all health-based distinctions are illegal. The key legal idea is whether the employer’s action is job-related and consistent with business necessity, applied through individualized assessment, and accompanied by reasonable accommodation where legally required.

4.1 Essential Functions and Individualized Assessment

A defensible employer decision typically shows:

Clear identification of essential job duties.
Medical evaluation connected to those duties.
An individualized decision, not a blanket rule (“no diabetics,” “no history of TB,” “no depression,” “no cancer survivors,” etc. are high-risk policies).

4.2 Reasonable Accommodation and “Undue Hardship”

Where disability law applies, employers should explore accommodations such as:

Adjusted schedules (e.g., for treatment or medication timing).
Modified duties (reassignment of marginal tasks).
Ergonomic adjustments or assistive devices.
Remote work or hybrid setup where feasible.
Breaks or rest periods.
Temporary job restructuring during recovery.

The employer may refuse only if the accommodation causes undue hardship—typically meaning significant difficulty or expense in context (company size, resources, nature of operations) or if it creates a significant, unmitigable safety risk.

4.3 Direct Threat and Safety-Critical Roles

For roles involving public safety or high-risk operations, an employer may justify restrictions if the employee’s condition poses a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be reduced by reasonable measures.

Important safeguards:

The risk assessment should be evidence-based, not stereotype-based.
It should consider duration, severity, likelihood, and imminence of harm.
It should consider mitigating measures.

4.4 Fitness-for-Work Examinations: What’s Acceptable

Pre-employment and periodic medical exams are common. Legally safer practice includes:

Limiting exams to job-related factors.
Avoiding overly broad “full medical history” fishing expeditions unless justified.
Ensuring confidentiality and restricted access.
Using results as one input, not as automatic disqualification unless essential and demonstrably necessary.

5) Common Unlawful Practices Involving Health History

5.1 Blanket Exclusions

Policies like “no applicants with history of mental illness,” “no applicants with hypertension,” “no PWDs,” “no history of TB,” “no HIV-positive,” or “no cancer survivors” are legally risky because they substitute stereotypes for job-specific evaluation and may violate disability and other protective laws.

5.2 Forced Disclosure and Overbroad Medical Questionnaires

Requiring detailed diagnoses, medication lists, therapy notes, or genetic/family history without a strong job-related justification may violate data privacy principles and can support discrimination claims.

5.3 Using Medical Information to Deny Promotion or Benefits

Even if an employee is performing well, an employer may unlawfully:

Block promotion due to “health risk.”
Reassign to less desirable roles without legitimate basis.
Reduce hours or benefits because of medical history.

5.4 Constructive Dismissal Based on Health

Instead of outright termination, employers may pressure employees to resign by:

Removing meaningful work,
Assigning humiliating duties,
Creating hostile conditions tied to health status,
Using repeated medical “rechecks” to harass.

5.5 Confidentiality Breaches and Workplace Stigma

Disclosing someone’s condition, discussing it publicly, or allowing managers to gossip about it can create privacy liability and contribute to a hostile work environment.

6) Hiring Stage: Practical Legal Issues

6.1 Medical Exams Before vs. After a Job Offer

Many jurisdictions treat pre-offer medical screening as discriminatory; the Philippine framework does not use exactly the same structure, but the same principles (necessity, proportionality, privacy) help evaluate risk. A safer approach is:

Evaluate qualifications first,
Limit medical screening to job-related criteria and safety,
Use the minimum information necessary.

6.2 “Fit to Work” Certificates and Medical Clearance

Requiring a fit-to-work clearance can be legitimate, especially post-illness. However:

Standards must be consistent,
Evaluation must be objective,
Clearance procedures must not be used to keep someone out indefinitely without due process.

6.3 Background Checks and Insurance Enrollment

Some employers use insurance underwriting as a proxy for hiring (“too expensive to insure”). This can raise discrimination concerns if it results in exclusion based on health history rather than job ability. Employers should separate insurance cost management from employment eligibility decisions, and still comply with disability and privacy duties.

7) Employment Stage: Leaves, Performance, Discipline, and Termination

7.1 Sick Leave and Statutory/Contractual Leaves

The Labor Code does not provide a universal paid sick leave for all private sector workers, but many employees receive leave through company policy, CBA, or sectoral rules. Even where leave is not guaranteed, employers must avoid retaliatory or discriminatory action for legitimate health-related absences, especially if protected by contract, policy, or specific statutes.

7.2 Performance Management: The Accommodation Lens

If a health condition affects performance, the lawful path often involves:

Clarifying performance expectations,
Exploring accommodations,
Documenting objective issues,
Avoiding assumptions (“she has anxiety, so she can’t lead”).

7.3 Termination Based on Illness or Medical Unfitness

Philippine labor law recognizes that termination may occur for certain authorized causes relating to health, but it generally requires:

Competent medical findings,
Due process (notice and opportunity to be heard),
Consideration of alternatives (where feasible),
Good faith and non-pretextual reasoning.

A termination that is effectively “because you got sick” without proper basis and process can be illegal dismissal.

8) Enforcement Pathways and Remedies

8.1 Administrative Remedies (Labor)

Depending on the issue, workers may approach:

DOLE offices for labor standards and compliance matters,
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal, money claims, and related labor disputes,
Grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration if covered by a CBA.

Common remedies include:

Reinstatement (in illegal dismissal cases, where appropriate),
Backwages,
Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement (in some circumstances),
Payment of benefits and wage differentials,
Damages in appropriate cases (subject to legal standards and proof).

8.2 Disability-Related Complaints

PWD-related discrimination may be raised through appropriate administrative channels and can support labor claims. Documentary evidence of disability status, requests for accommodation, and employer responses are especially important.

8.3 Data Privacy Complaints

Where medical information was mishandled, the National Privacy Commission (NPC) can have jurisdiction. Remedies can include corrective orders and other sanctions depending on violation findings.

8.4 Criminal/Quasi-Criminal Liabilities in Specific Laws

Certain health-related protections (notably around HIV confidentiality and discriminatory acts) can carry penalties. Whether a given incident triggers these depends on the exact conduct (e.g., unauthorized disclosure, discriminatory denial of employment due to HIV status).

9) Evidence: How Health-History Discrimination Is Proven

9.1 Direct Evidence

Written policies excluding medical conditions.
Emails/messages citing medical history as reason for denial or termination.
Medical exam results annotated with disqualifying remarks.
HR notes: “do not hire—hypertension,” “psych history,” etc.

9.2 Circumstantial Evidence

Sudden adverse action after disclosure of a condition.
Shifting explanations for termination.
Inconsistent application of fitness standards.
Better treatment of similarly situated employees without the condition.
Pattern data showing exclusion correlated with health conditions or disability.

9.3 Documentation Workers Should Keep

Job description and performance evaluations.
Medical certificates submitted (and what was disclosed).
Accommodation requests and employer responses.
Notices, memos, and termination documents.
Names of witnesses and timeline of events.

10) Employer Compliance: Best-Practice Policy Architecture

A legally resilient employer framework typically includes:

10.1 Non-Discrimination and Accommodation Policy

Explicit statement that decisions are based on merit and essential job requirements.
Clear process for requesting accommodations.
Interactive dialogue steps (employee–HR–supervisor, with medical input when needed).
Undue hardship criteria.

10.2 Medical Information Governance (Privacy by Design)

Purpose limitation: why is each health data element needed?
Data minimization: collect only what is necessary.
Role-based access controls.
Secure storage and retention schedules.
Confidential handling training for HR and managers.

10.3 Fitness-to-Work Protocol

Standardized, role-specific medical criteria.
Independent medical review when needed.
Appeal/review mechanism.
Consistent documentation.

10.4 Anti-Harassment and Anti-Stigma Measures

Prohibit mocking or disclosure of health information.
Clear reporting channels and protection against retaliation.

11) Special Topics and Edge Cases

11.1 Infectious Diseases (TB, Hepatitis, etc.)

Employers may have legitimate public health and safety concerns. The legal risk arises when employers:

Apply non-evidence-based blanket bans,
Fail to follow public health guidance and individualized assessment,
Ignore medical clearance or recovery status,
Disclose the employee’s condition unnecessarily.

Better practice is to focus on actual transmission risk in the specific work context, adopt reasonable mitigation measures, and maintain confidentiality.

11.2 Pregnancy and Related Conditions as “Health History”

Adverse treatment due to pregnancy-related health needs can be framed as discrimination, retaliation, or violation of protective labor standards. Employers should avoid:

Non-hiring due to “might get pregnant” or “recent miscarriage,”
Penalizing prenatal checkups when documented,
Demotion due to pregnancy.

11.3 “Psychological Fitness” Screening

Psychological exams can be legitimate for certain roles, but must be:

Professionally administered,
Job-related and validated to the extent practicable,
Not used to exclude broadly based on diagnosis labels,
Paired with confidentiality safeguards.

11.4 Substance Use, Dependency, and Policy Enforcement

Where substance use intersects with health history (e.g., rehabilitation records), employers must balance:

Workplace safety and policy enforcement,
Confidentiality and non-discrimination,
Due process in discipline and termination.

12) Practical Framework: A Worker’s Checklist

If you suspect discrimination based on health history, evaluate:

What was the adverse action? (non-hiring, termination, demotion, pay cut, harassment)
When did it happen relative to disclosure or medical exam?
Was the reason job-related and specific? Or a general fear/stereotype?
Were you performing essential functions? If not, were accommodations discussed?
Was due process followed? (notices, hearing/opportunity to respond)
Was confidentiality respected? Who knew, and why?
Were similarly situated employees treated differently?
What documents show the employer’s reasoning?

13) Conclusion: The Philippine Legal Approach in One Principle

Philippine protections against employment discrimination based on health history are strongest where health data is used to exclude or punish a person without a job-related, evidence-based basis; without due process; without reasonable accommodation when disability-related; and without confidentiality as required for sensitive medical information. Employers may protect safety and operational needs, but must do so through individualized assessment, lawful medical evaluation, privacy-compliant handling of data, and fair labor practices.