Court Voids Claim of Bias in Rejection of Student

Over three dissents, the Supreme Court on Monday summarily reversed a federal appellate court ruling that Los Angeles County authorities had unfairly denied admission to nursing school to a victim of a chronic, incurable intestinal disorder.

The court freed the county from facing monetary damages in a suit brought by Mary L. Kling, a 29-year-old Ventura woman who suffers from Crohn’s disease. The illness causes weight loss, nausea, vomiting, headaches and severe stomach pain.

Kling had undergone surgery for removal of the large intestine and part of the small intestine but maintained she could still work in the medical profession.

Failed Physical Test

The woman filed her suit in 1979 after the County-USC Medical Center nursing school withdrew her admission to classes after she failed physical examinations. She later completed training at another school but sought damages from the county, alleging she had been discriminated against because of her disability.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence T. Lydick upheld the county’s denial of her admission, noting that she had also failed to meet academic requirements for admission, and rejected her bid for monetary damages under the federal Rehabilitation Act.

But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned the finding as “clearly erroneous” and held that officials denied her admission solely because of her handicap without adequately evaluating her condition on an individual basis. The court said the finding that she had been barred for academic reasons as well was “meritless.”

Lawyers for the county appealed to the Supreme Court and the court majority, without issuing an opinion, summarily reversed the 9th Circuit decision (County of Los Angeles vs. Kling, 85-295).

Basis of Dissents

Justice Thurgood Marshall dissented, saying the two sides in the case should have been given a chance to present additional arguments to the court.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in a separate dissent, said that while the appellate court should have explained its action in greater detail, the Supreme Court in turn should not have acted without a more thorough review of the record. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. also dissented.

Kling’s attorney, Stanley Fleishman of Los Angeles, denounced the court’s summary ruling. “This was wholly unexpected and absolutely outrageous,” he said.

Fleishman acknowledged that even in losing her case, Kling had proved a point by going on to become a nurse. “There was never any doubt she could do the work,” he said.

Los Angeles County officials expressed satisfaction with the court’s ruling.

“We got exactly what we wanted--a summary reversal,” said Assistant County Counsel Donovan Main. “We felt the Court of Appeals had gone beyond its authority in reversing the district court judge.”

Deputy County Counsel Alan K. Terakawa noted that Kling had been able to graduate from another nursing school without delay and thus had suffered no real setback in her pursuit of an education.

Indian Tax Issue

In another case, the court ruled 5 to 4 that the state of California may require the Chemehuevi Indians to collect a state tax on cigarettes sold to non-Indians on the tribe’s reservation in San Bernardino County.

The justices, in an unsigned opinion, overturned a ruling by a federal appellate panel in San Francisco that the tribe need not collect such a tax for the state. Four members of the high court filed dissents, with Justice Stevens saying he thought the appellate court was better qualified to interpret California tax law than the high court.

The case (California vs. Chemehuevi Tribe, 85-130) began in 1977 when the tribe refused to collect state-imposed taxes and enacted its own tax in the same amount--$1 a carton. The state determined that the tribe owed it $11,702 and brought suit, winning its case in federal district court. The appeals court overturned that ruling, but last summer Justice William H. Rehnquist set aside the appellate decision, allowing the state to collect the disputed tax until the full court heard the case.

The justices held that the state tax law placed on non-Indian purchasers an obligation to pay the cigarette tax and that while the tribe itself could not be taxed, it could be required to collect the state tax from consumers.