Chalk v. United States District Court Central District of California
1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 19520, 1 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1210, 840 F.2d 701 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, an individual with a contagious disease is "otherwise qualified" for employment and cannot be excluded from the workplace unless they pose a significant risk of communicating the disease to others. This determination must be based on reasonable medical judgments about the nature, duration, severity, and probability of transmission, not on unsubstantiated fears, speculation, or a demand for absolute certainty.
Facts:
- Vincent L. Chalk was a certified teacher for hearing-impaired students employed by the Orange County Department of Education.
- In February 1987, Chalk was hospitalized and diagnosed with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
- After recuperating, Chalk's personal physician found him fit to return to work in April 1987.
- A county public health official, Dr. Thomas J. Prendergast, subsequently informed the Department that Chalk's role as a teacher posed no risk of HIV infection to students or others.
- Despite medical clearance, the Department of Education barred Chalk from his classroom teaching position.
- The Department offered Chalk an alternative administrative position, preparing grant proposals, which did not involve student contact.
- Chalk refused the administrative assignment and insisted on being reinstated to his classroom duties.
Procedural Posture:
- The Orange County Department of Education filed an action for declaratory relief in California state court.
- Vincent L. Chalk filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction to bar the Department from excluding him from the classroom.
- Chalk moved for a preliminary injunction ordering his reinstatement.
- The district court (trial court) denied Chalk's motion for a preliminary injunction.
- Chalk, as the appellant, filed an expedited appeal of the district court's denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does excluding a teacher diagnosed with AIDS from the classroom, based on a theoretical risk of transmission unsupported by the overwhelming consensus of medical evidence, violate § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973?
Opinions:
Majority - Poole, J.
Yes. Excluding a teacher with AIDS from the classroom based on theoretical fears, when contrary to overwhelming medical evidence showing no significant risk of transmission, violates § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The court reasoned that the district court misapplied the legal standard established in School Bd. of Nassau County v. Arline, which protects individuals with contagious diseases from discrimination. Arline requires an individualized inquiry to determine if an employee poses a 'significant risk' to others, a standard which must be based on reasonable medical judgments. The district court erred by demanding 'complete certainty' of no risk, a nearly impossible burden, and by ignoring the consensus of public health officials and medical experts who stated AIDS is not transmitted by casual classroom contact. Furthermore, the court found the district court clearly erred in concluding there was no irreparable injury; the non-monetary harm of being removed from a chosen profession, coupled with the emotional and psychological distress, constitutes irreparable injury. The balance of hardships tips sharply in Chalk's favor, as his concrete and immediate injury outweighs the Department's speculative harm, which is based on the very 'irrational fear' and prejudice the Act was designed to prevent.
Concurring - Sneed, J.
Yes. The court must rely on the established consensus of qualified medical experts, not on speculation about what science might discover in the future. The district judge's decision was 'impermissibly flawed' because it was unduly influenced by the potential catastrophic consequences of being wrong, rather than being guided by the actual probability of risk based on current knowledge. Chalk met his burden by demonstrating a high probability of success on the merits and that the balance of hardships favored him, all based on the current scientific truth presented to the court. Judges cannot reject expert consensus out of fear that scientific truths may be revised later.
Analysis:
This case was a landmark decision in the early stages of the AIDS epidemic, firmly applying the protections of federal disability law to individuals with AIDS. It established that employment decisions must be grounded in objective scientific evidence rather than public fear or prejudice. By rejecting a 'zero-risk' standard and reinforcing the 'significant risk' test from Arline, the court set a critical precedent that prevented employers from using remote or theoretical possibilities of harm to justify discrimination. The opinion's recognition of non-monetary, psychological harm as 'irreparable' also strengthened the ability of plaintiffs in discrimination cases to obtain preliminary injunctions.
