The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 also states that an individual qualifies as handicapped if she or he is regarded as having impairment. Cone shares that this aspect of the legislation applies to someone whom, in a workplace setting, is treated as if limited in major life activities, or the limitation on activities is a result on the attitudes of others. This interpretation of the Act is important for a PWA who fears that an employer will perceive them to be incapable of completing tasks that are required by the job description. The fact of her or his positive diagnosis, regardless of how advanced or asymptomatic the progression of the disease may be, is likely to provoke fears for job security and medical benefits. The employee may also fear that she or he will be passed over for salary raises, job promotions, or appointments to special projects if the supervisor knows about a positive diagnosis. Finally, reactionary and ignorant attitudes, manifesting themselves in the forms of harassment and intimidation, can place limitations on the activities that a PWA can complete at the work site.

Hale cited one notable case, an employee filed a lawsuit against his supervisor at an undisclosed place of employment for forcing him to reveal that he was infected with the AIDS virus. During this time, as a result of hostility and fear, employees staged a walkout, halting all work-production within the company. This decision had a profound impact on the amount of work the employee was able to complete although he continued with his tasks as normal. After the walkout was resolved, he continued employment with this company. It could be successfully argued that the level of job performance he achieved before the forced disclosure was never achieved again because of the great hostility generated against him.