Gorton is HIV positive. He is also has severe allergies. The medication he takes to control the debilitating effects of his allergies causes his nasal membranes to dry out, resulting in frequent nosebleeds. Even though his allergy medications control the most severe symptoms of his allergies, they do not keep him from sneezing frequently in the presence of popular perfumes. It would be extremely expensive for the bank to install air filters that would rid the air in the bank of the types of fragrances that trigger Gorton’s sneezing. The essential functions of the job requires sitting at a desk in an open -air bank lobby eliciting information from prospective customers to determine how the bank can best meet their needs. He has performed this job before and, with the possible exception of his recent health issues, is very qualified to do this job. Yet after telling the bank of his conditions, including showing them a picture and price of the air filter the HR manager refuses to hire Gorton. In fact he escorts him off the bank premises while holding a handkerchief over his face. Gorton sues based on the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). Who wins and why? Would it matter if Gordon never told the bank about his HIV and allergies? If no, why not? If yes, how does it affect the outcome?