Subject: U. S. Agencies Told To Bar Bias for Victims of AIDS 
Date: Published: 10/7/88 88 lines
Source:  Wall Street Journal.  Copyright Dow Jones & Co. Inc. 

    Law:  
    U. S. Agencies, in Reversal, Told
    To Bar Bias for Victims of AIDS
    ----  
    By Andy Pasztor and Joe Davidson
    Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal

    WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department, reversing its
 earlier position on AIDS, said the fear of contagion by
 itself doesn't permit federal agencies and federally-assisted
 employers to fire or discriminate against workers infected
 with the virus.
    A legal opinion by the agency, which establishes the
 government's interpretation of laws protecting the
 handicapped, significantly broadens the protection for
 victims of acquired immune deficiency syndrome.  "There will
 often be little, if any, justification for treating infected
 individuals differently from others," the department
 concluded.
    The move is an about-face for the Justice Department,
 which two years ago determined that laws protecting the
 handicapped didn't guard victims of AIDS and other contagious
 diseases from discrimination prompted primarily by fears of
 spreading the disease.
    The opinion is binding on federal agencies, government
 contractors, school boards, managers of federally subsidized
 housing projects and other organizations receiving federal
 contracts or financial assistance.  But it also is likely to
 be incorporated in arguments by employees alleging
 discrimination by private companies, and could affect how
 some judges view the overall AIDS issue.
    Asserting that even "unreasonable" fears of contamination
 wouldn't trigger anti-discrimination penalties, the 1986
 opinion prompted sharp criticism from many public-health
 officials, lawmakers, civil rights activists and gay groups.
    Department officials said the latest opinion reflects
 recent medical developments, a 1987 Supreme Court decision
 and congressional action clarifying the scope of certain
 anti-discrimination statutes.
    The opinion emphasizes that during the early stages of the
 disease, before the onset of obvious symptoms, there
 generally isn't any legal or medical justification to
 discriminate in any way against such individuals.  As
 more-serious symptoms appear, employers and others must
 determine on a case-by-case basis whether infected
 individuals pose a direct threat to the health or safety of
 others, according to the agency.
    The opinion, written by Douglas Kmiec, acting head of the
 Office of Legal Counsel, and reviewed by Attorney General
 Dick Thornburgh, was praised by agency critics.
    Christine Gebbie, a member of the now-defunct presidential
 AIDS commission and administrator of the Oregon health
 division, described the ruling as more than a symbolic
 victory.  "I know people were fired because of a fear of
 AIDS," she said.  "That {earlier} interpretation inhibited"
 those individuals "from taking legal action to protect
 themselves."
    Jeffrey Levi, executive director of the National Gay and
 Lesbian Task Force, said he was "pleased the Justice
 Department has finally caught up with the Supreme Court."
    The 29-page opinion says that in most situations "the
 probability that the AIDS virus will be transmitted is
 slight," and that generally neither health nor
 worker-performance considerations "will provide a
 justification for excluding" infected individuals from
 employment or other benefits.
    However, the opinion indicates that the impact of the AIDS
 virus on the central nervous system and the "uncertain state"
 of medical knowledge about the disease probably requires that
 some infected employees in sensitive jobs stop working
 altogether.
    According to the document, it may be impossible to make
 "reasonable accommodation" for positions such as "bus driver,
 airline pilot or air traffic controller," where "the risk of
 injury is great" if the infected worker isn't able "to
 perform the duties of the job."
    In announcing the new position, Mr. Thornburgh said
 legislation may be necessary to "adequately and
 appropriately" protect the rights of AIDS victims.

[This article is made available here by Dow Jones Co. for the 
personal and non-commercial use of callers to this bbs, in the 
hope that it will be of some help to those who are suffering 
from the disease and others who are seeking to help them.]