Judges Hint at Backing Teacher in AIDS Case

School officials who barred an AIDS-infected teacher from an Orange County classroom are engaging in a “know-nothing argument” and their chances of defending the decision in federal court are “bleak,” two federal appeals court justices said Tuesday.

The remarks came as lawyers for teacher Vincent Chalk asked the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to issue a preliminary injunction allowing Chalk to return to his hearing-impaired students until his federal suit against the Orange County Department of Education is settled.

The suit is scheduled to begin Jan. 5 in Los Angeles. A decision on the preliminary injunction could come from the three-justice appeals court at any time before then.

At issue is whether a 1973 federal law that protects handicapped workers from discrimination also protects people afflicted with AIDS. The law was designed to prevent handicapped people from being denied opportunities due to prejudice or ignorance about their conditions.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a Florida schoolteacher with recurring tuberculosis was covered by the anti-discrimination law as long as she did not pose a “significant risk” to others. The court added that such risk must be based on “reasoned and medically sound judgments.” AIDS was not mentioned by the court, but many legal scholars said the ruling appeared to extend protection to people with AIDS and other non-acute ailments.

One of Chalk’s lawyers, Paul L. Hoffman of the American Civil Liberties Union, said after the two-hour hearing that he was optimistic the outwardly healthy teacher would be back in class at University High and Venado Middle School in Irvine by Thanksgiving.

“We felt all along that we had an overwhelming case,” he said, “. . . The questioning (by the justices) was hopeful that they agree with that.”

Chalk, who stressed that he would not pursue the case unless he was certain that he could safely teach his students, was buoyed by that thought.

“That would be great,” he said. “I would love to be able to get ready for Christmas with the kids.”

“What you have here is a classic Section 504 (discrimination) violation,” Hoffman told the court. “What you have is someone shunted aside because of fear.”

The medical community, he said, is nearly unanimous in the belief that AIDS cannot be transmitted casually, as in the classroom setting. And yet, he said, Chalk is denied work.

“He is being treated as though he has something that can harm (students), and he doesn’t,” Hoffman argued, noting that several parents have joined in filing a court brief supporting the teacher and none formally opposes him.

Ronald D. Wenkart, the Education Department’s attorney countered that one doctor has warned the district that scientists do not yet fully understand AIDS and may not thoroughly understand all of the ways in which it is transmitted.

‘Secondary Effects’

He said the school district is particularly concerned about the “secondary effects” of the disease. AIDS destroys the body’s mechanism for fighting off infections, opening the way for pneumonia, tuberculosis and other diseases.

Appeals Court Justice Cecil F. Poole, however, said that argument is not relevant, since Chalk does not now have such a communicable disease. Poole also derided the argument that not enough is known about AIDS to decide about whether to let Chalk teach.

“Yours is a ‘know-nothing’ argument--that since we don’t know everything (about the disease), we must assume (every negative claim about) is true,” he said.

Poole also noted that the district had some difficulty finding a doctor to support its legal position.

“You looked at 20 to 25 people before you found Dr. Armentrout,” he said, referring to Dr. Steven A. Armentrout, the UC Irvine Medical School professor on whose advice the district reassigned Chalk, “. . . and he represents a fringe minority of the medical profession.”

“Today’s minority may be tomorrow’s majority,” Wenkart responded.

That prompted Justice Joseph T. Sneed to comment that “the probability of success on the merits (during the coming jury trial) appears bleak, from your standpoint.”

Wenkart, declined to speculate about how the court might rule. “I’ve been in enough of these cases to know you don’t guess what a court will do until you have a written decision in your hands,” he said.

Chalk, described as a popular and caring teacher who communicates well with deaf children, voluntarily left the classroom last year, when he was diagnosed with pneumocystis pneumonia, a common infection among AIDS patients.

Certified Fit

He recovered and was certified fit to return to class by his own physician in April. The district balked and brought in a county physician to confirm his fitness; the second clearance came in May.

By then, however, it was so late in the school year that Chalk agreed with administrators that it would be best for the students if they continued with the same teacher for the rest of the term. Chalk, it was decided, could return in the fall.

Shortly before classes were scheduled to resume, however, Chalk was told in August that he would not be allowed to teach. He was assigned to an administrative post and forbidden to contact students. He then sued under the federal law.

Until that lawsuit can be heard, however, Chalk is requesting a court order forcing the district to let him teach. U.S. District Judge William P. Gray in Los Angeles denied one request for such an order in September.