Legal Implications of the Contagious Disease or Infections Amendment to the Civil Rights Restoration Act, S.557

This report discusses the civil rights restoration act, S. 557, as it passed the House and Senate. This provision would most likely be interpreted as codifying the existing standards relating to section 504 interpretation concerning discrimination against individuals with handicaps.

CRS REPORT FOR CONGRESS LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASE OR INFECTIONS AMENDMENT TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS RESTORATION ACT, S. 557 Nancy Lee J o n e s L e g i s l a t i v e Attorney American Law D i v i s i o n March 14, 1988 T h e Congre\sional Research S e n ice works esclusi\el\ for the Congress. conducting research, analvzing legikition, and providing information at the request of committees. \fernbers, and their staffs. T h e Service makes such research available, without partisan bias, in many forms includins studies, reports. compilations, digests, and background br~efings.Upon request, CKS assists &mmittees in analyzing leyslative proposals and issues, and in assessing the possible effects of these proposals and their alternatives. T h e Service's senior specialists and subject analysts are also a\.ailable for personal consultations in their respective fields of expertise. ABSTRACT S. 557, 100th Congress, a s i t passed t h e House and S e n a t e c o n t a i n e d an amendment t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n a l s e c t i o n of t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act d i s c u s s i n g t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y of s e c t i o n 504 a s i t r e l a t e s t o t h e employment o f p e r s o n s with c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e s o r i n f e c t i o n s . T h i s p r o v i s i o n would most l i k e l y be i n t e r p r e t e d a s c o d i f y i n g t h e e x i s t i n g s t a n d a r d s r e l a t i n g t o s e c t i o n 504 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t i n d i v i d u a l s with handicaps. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S. 557, 1 0 0 t h Congress, a s i t passed t h e Rouse and S e n a t e c o n t a i n e d a n amendment t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n a l s e c t i o n o f t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act d i s c u s s i n g t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y of s e c t i o n 504 a s i t r e l a t e s t o t h e employment o f p e r s o n s w i t h c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e s o r i n f e c t i o n s . S e c t i o n 504, 29 U.S.C. 5794, i s t h e major f e d e r a l p r o v i s i o n c o n c e r n i n g d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h handicaps. T h i s amendment would most l i k e l y be i n t e r p r e t e d a s c o d i f y i n g t h e e x i s t i n g s t a n d a r d s a p p l i c a b l e t o s e c t i o n 504. However, t h e r e i s some a m b i g u i t y c o n c e r n i n g whether t h e amendment would i n d i c a t e t h a t p e r s o n s who a r e o n l y c o n t a g i o u s o r i n f e c t i o u s but m a n i f e s t no p h y s i c a l symptoms o f t h e i r d i s e a s e a r e covered by t h e s e s e c t i o n 504 s t a n d a r d s . There i s s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i v e language i n t h e Rouse d e b a t e s s u p p o r t i n g t h e argument t h a t such p e r s o n s would b e covered b u t t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t p i e c e o f l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y - t h e c o l l o q u y between t h e two co-sponsors -- i s s i l e n t on t h i s p o i n t a l t h o u g h i t d o e s not a p p a r e n t l y c o n t r a d i c t t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I1. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 111. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE AMENDMENT O N CONTAGIOUS DISEASES OR INFECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 B . Senate L e g i s l a t i v e History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 C . House L e g i s l a t i v e H i s t o r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 IV. EFFECT ON CURRENT LAW OF THE AMENDMENT ON CONTAGIOUS DISEASES OR INFECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 A . I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 B . C o d i f i c a t i o n of S e c t i o n 504 S t a n d a r d s . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 C . S e c t i o n 504 Coverage o f P e r s o n s who a r e C o n t a g i o u s o r I n f e c t i o u s b u t who d o n o t M a n i f e s t P h y s i c a l Symptoms o f t h e i r D i s e a s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 D . 1978 Amendments Concerning Drug A d d i c t s and A l c o h o l i c s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 V. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 ABSTRACT LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASE OR INFECTIONS AMENDMENT TO THE C I V I L RIGHTS RESTORATION ACT, S. 557 I. INTRODUCTION The C i v i l R i g h t s R e s t o r a t i o n Act, S. 557, passed t h e S e n a t e on J a n u a r y 28, 1988 and t h e House on March 2, 1988. 11 - An amendment was added d u r i n g S e n a t e f l o o r d e b a t e t o s e c t i o n 7 ( 8 ) , 29 U.S.C. §706(8), t h e d e f i n i t i o n a l s e c t i o n of t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act d i s c u s s i n g t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y of s e c t i o n 504 a s i t r e l a t e s t o employment of p e r s o n s w i t h c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e s o r i n f e c t i o n s . T h i s r e p o r t w i l l a n a l y z e t h e l e g a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment but f i r s t t h e r e w i l l be a b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n of t h e background of t h e l e g i s l a t i o n . I I. BACKGROUND S. 557 was i n t r o d u c e d i n response t o a Supreme Court d e c i s i o n , Grove C i t y C o l l e g e v. B e l l , 465 U.S. 555 (1984), where t h e Supreme Court found t h a t an e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n i s covered by t h e n o n d i s c r i m i n a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s o f t i t l e I X o f t h e Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1 6 8 1 ( a ) , i f some of i t s s t u d e n t s r e c e i v e f e d e r a l g r a n t s t o pay f o r t h e i r e d u c a t i o n . However, t h e r e c e i p t o f t h e s e g r a n t s was found n o t t o t r i g g e r i n s t i t u t i o n - w i d e coverage but r a t h e r , s i n c e t h e g r a n t s represent f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e College's f i n a n c i a l a i d program, i t was found t o b e o n l y t h a t program which may be r e g u l a t e d by t i t l e I X . 11 1988); S i n c e t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 901 of t i t l e I X 134 Cong. Rec. S.266 ( J a n . 28, 1988); 134 Cong. Rec. 8. 598 (March 2, a r e very s i m i l a r t o those of t h r e e o t h e r c i v i l r i g h t s s t a t u t e s 504 of t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 56102 -- section 5794; s e c t i o n 601 of t i t l e I V o f t h e C i v i l R i g h t s Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. D i s c r i m i n a t i o n Act, 42 U.S.C. -- s2000d; and t h e Age t h e h o l d i n g i n Grove C i t y h a s i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r how t h e program s p e c i f i c i t y i s s u e i s t o be determined for these statutes. S. 557 would amend t h e s e f o u r s t a t u t e s by d e f i n i n g t h e term program o r a c t i v i t y i n a b r o a d e r manner t h a n t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s interpretation. A t t h i s point, i t i s important t o note t h e s t a t u t o r y requirements o f s e c t i o n 504: s e c t i o n 504 p r o h i b i t s d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t a n o t h e r w i s e q u a l i f i e d handicapped person s o l e l y by r e a s o n of h a n d i c a p i n any program o r a c t i v i t y t h a t r e c e i v e s f e d e r a l f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e o r i n a n e x e c u t i v e agency o r t h e United S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e . 111. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE AMENDMENT ON CONTAGIOUS DISEASES AND INFECTIONS A. Introduction Having d i s c u s s e d S. 557 g e n e r a l l y , we w i l l now t u r n s p e c i f i c a l l y t o t h e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f t h e f l o o r amendment o n c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e s and i n f e c t i o n s which was j o i n t l y i n t r o d u c e d by S e n a t o r s Humphrey and Harkin. The amendment, No. 1396, was i n t r o d u c e d w i t h a n o t a t i o n of t h e f o l l o w i n g purpose: "(Purpose: To p r o v i d e a c l a r i f i c a t i o n f o r o t h e r w i s e q u a l i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h handicaps 2/ ni n t h e employment c o n t e x t ) . As passed by Congress, t h i s p r o v i s i o n states: (C) For t h e purpose of s e c t i o n s 503 and 504, a s s u c h s e c t i o n s r e l a t e t o employment, s u c h term d o e s n o t i n c l u d e a n i n d i v i d u a l who h a s a c u r r e n t l y c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e o r i n f e c t i o n and who, by r e a s o n o f s u c h d i s e a s e o r i n f e c t i o n , would c o n s t i t u t e a d i r e c t t h r e a t t o t h e h e a l t h o r s a f e t y o f o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s o r who, by r e a s o n -2 / 134 Cong. Rec. S.256 ( J a n u a r y 28, 1988). of t h e c u r r e n t l y c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e o r i n f e c t i o n , i s unable t o perform t h e d u t i e s of t h e job. B. Senate L e g i s l a t i v e H i s t o r y The amendment was t h e s u b j e c t of a f l o o r c o l l o q u y between S e n a t o r s Humphrey and Harkin upon i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n . (1) Three main p o i n t s were made i n t h i s c o l l o q u y . The amendment was "designed t o a d d r e s s a n i s s u e comparable t o t h e one faced by Congress i n 1978 with r e g a r d t o coverage o f a l c o h o l and d r u g a b u s e r s under s e c t i o n 504 of t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act. T h a t , i s , Congress wfsh(ed) t o a s s u r e employers t h a t t h e y a r e n o t r e q u i r e d t o r e t a i n o r h i r e i n d i v i d u a l s with a c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e o r i n f e c t i o n when such i n d i v i d u a l s pose a d i r e c t t h r e a t t o t h e h e a l t h o r s a f e t y of o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s o r c a n n o t perform t h e e s s e n t i a l d u t i e s of a job." -3 / ( 2 ) It was understood t h a t t h e amendment "does n o t h i n g t o change t h e c u r r e n t laws r e g a r d i n g r e a s o n a b l e 4/ accommodation a s i t a p p l i e s t o i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h handicaps." (3) Finally, - t h e c o l l o q u y i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t was understood t h a t " a s we s t a t e d i n 1978 w i t h r e s p e c t t o a l c o h o l and d r u g a b u s e r s , ... t h e two-step process i n s e c t i o n 504 a p p l i e s i n t h e s i t u a t i o n under which i t was f i r s t determined t h a t a person was handicapped and t h e n i t i s determined t h a t a p e r s o n i s o t h e r w i s e 51 qualified."- S i n c e t h i s c o l l o q u y was between t h e two s p o n s o r s of t h e amendment, i t i s e n t i t l e d t o s i g n i f i c a n t weight i n terms o f i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e meaning of t h e p r o v i s i o n . There a r e s e v e r a l o t h e r d i s c u s s i o n s of s e c t i o n 504 and c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e s g e n e r a l l y and t h e S e n a t e amendment specifically throughout t h e l e g i s l a t i v e - -31 134 Cong. Rec. S. 256 41 - 134 Cong. Rec. S. 257 ( J a n . 28, 1988). S. 257 ( J a n . 28, 1988). 51 Id. The complete v e r s i o n of t h e c o l l o q u y i s reproduced a s a n appendix t o thTs r e p o r t . h i s t o r y o f S. 557. These s t a t e m e n t s d i f f e r i n t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e amendment and i n d i c a t e t h e p o l i t i c a l d i v i s i v e n e s s c r e a t e d by t h e i s s u e . court -- The weight which would b e a c c o r d e d t o t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s by a even t h o s e s u b s e q u e n t s t a t e m e n t s by s p o n s o r s o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n -- would most l i k e l y b e l e s s t h a n t h a t a c c o r d e d t o t h e c o l l o q u y by t h e s p o n s o r s 6/ made a t t h e t i m e o f i n t r o d u c t i o n . However, s i n c e c o u r t s c o u l d l o o k t o t h e s e 7I s t a t e m e n t s t o a i d i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e y w i l l b e examined. The f i r s t comments made d u r i n g t h e J a n u a r y 2 8 t h d e b a t e on S. 557 r e g a r d i n g s e c t i o n 504 and c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e s were t h o s e of S e n a t o r Simon. He noted h i s s u p p o r t o f t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n School Board o f Nassau County v . A r l i n e , 94 L.Ed.2d 307 ( 1 9 8 7 ) , and opposed any c h a n g e s i n t h e c o v e r a g e i n d i c a t e d by t h i s d e c i s i o n . F i r s t , h e o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e r e was 81 "no need t o change t h e l a w i n o r d e r t o p r o t e c t t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h . " Second, h e argued t h a t " a s t h e Supreme Court n o t e d , t h e purpose o f s e c t i o n 504 i s t o ensure t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s with handicaps a r e not denied jobs o r o t h e r b e n e f i t s b e c a u s e o f t h e p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s o r i g n o r a n c e o f o t h e r s , and t h i s purpose i s not served i f persons with contagious d i s e a s e s a r e a u t o m a t i c a l l y excluded." 9/ - These remarks d o n o t a p p e a r t o b e f o c u s e d on t h e p a r t i c u l a r amendment which was l a t e r i n t r o d u c e d b u t r a t h e r d i s c u s s t h e g e n e r a l p h i l o s o p h y c o n c e r n i n g s e c t i o n 504 coverage. 6 1 S i n g e r , 2A S u t h e r l a n d S t a t u t e s and S t a t u t o r y C o n s t r u c t i o n ( 4 t h ifd. 1984). Id. -7 1 - 348.13. -8/ 134 Cong. Rec. 249 ( J a n . 28, 1988). -9 / 134 Cong. Rec. 250 ( J a n . 28, 1 9 8 8 ) . 5548.13, 48.15 S i m i l a r l y , p r i o r t o t h e a c t u a l i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e amendment, S e n a t o r Armstrong d i s c u s s e d h i s g e n e r a l philosophy c o n c e r n i n g s e c t i o n 504 c o v e r a g e , a philosophy which d i f f e r e d from S e n a t o r Simon's. 101 - He i n d i c a t e d d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e coverage o f c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e s by s e c t i o n 504 i n School Board of Nassau County v. A r l i n e f o r two main r e a s o n s : ( 1 ) medical knowledge i s u n c e r t a i n and " c o n s t a n t l y c h a n g i n g , even r e v e r s i n g 11/ itself," and ( 2 ) t h e approach s f t h e Court a r g u a b l y p u t s a f i n a n c i a l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e burden on s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s which may d e t e r t h e i r s e e k i n g reinoval of an a l l e g e d l y c o n t a g i o u s i n d i v i d u a l . S e n a t o r Armstrong a l s o d i s c u s s e d t h e Humphrey-Hawkins amendment a l t h o u g h he i n d i c a t e d t h a t he had n o t s e e n i t s e x a c t language. He observed t h a t , from h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , " i f we adopt t h e Humphrey amendment and i t i s s i g n e d i n t o l a w , and t h a t i s a l l we do, we a r e making a v e r y m a r g i n a l improvement i n a v e r y bad s i t u a t i o n . " 12/ - S e n a t o r s Armstrong and Humphrey d i s c u s s e d t h e amendment and i t was noted by S e n a t o r Armstrong t h a t an amendment of "a more sweeping n a t u r e , more a l o n g t h e l i n e s t h a t 13/ I b e l i e v e would he i n o r d e r " was o f f e r e d i n committee was d i d n o t p a s s . The amendment was t h e n d i s c u s s e d by S e n a t o r Wilson who s t a t e d t h a t " t h i s compromise d e s e r v e s s u p p o r t because i t d o e s a f f o r d t o us l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n f o r 1 0 1 134 11/ 134 1 2 / 134 1 3 / 134 - Cong. Rec. S. 251 - 255 ( J a n . 28, 1988). Cong. Rec. S. 254 ( J a n . 28, 1988). Cong. Rec. S. 254 ( J a n . 28, 1988). Cong. Rec. S. 255 ( J a n . 28, 1988) (Remarks o f S e n a t o r A m s t r o n g ) . t h e handicapped person and l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n a s w e l l a s p u b l i c h e a l t h p r o t e c t i o n 14/ f o r t h e p u b l i c i n terms of t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h t h r e a t t h a t might e x i s t He ."- f u r t h e r d e s c r i b e d what he thought t h e amendment m u l d accomplish. ... what i t does i s t o s t a t e t h a t t h e r e w i l l b e an adjustment i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of t h e p h r a s e "handicapped person," t o t a k e i n t o account t h a t someone who i s c u r r e n t l y a f f l i c t e d w i t h t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e o r an i n f e c t i o n and who by r e a s o n o f t h a t would c o n s t i t u t e a t h r e a t t o p u b l i c h e a l t h o r t o p u b l i c s a f e t y o r by r e a s o n o f t h a t a f f l i c t i o n would be unable t o perform t h e d u t i e s t h a t person w i l l n o t have t h e p r o t e c t i o n t h a t e x i s t s f o r t h o s e who simply s u f f e r a handicap and pose no t h r e a t o f harm t o o t h e r s . I t h i n k what t h i s language w i l l do i s t o r e q u i r e o f t h e l o c a l employer, l e t us s a y t h e l o c a l s c h o o l d i s t r i c t , t h e l o c a l park and r e c r e a t i o n b o a r d , t h a t t h e y s e e k t o g e t t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e medical e v i d e n c e , 15/ - The c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment was a l s o d i s c u s s e d by S e n a t o r Kerry d u r i n g d e b a t e on S. 557; however, t h i s d i s c u s s i o n was subsequent t o t h e v o t e on t h e amendment so i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e may be somewhat l e s s . Senator Kerry s t a t e d : I am p l e a s e d t h a t a compromise h a s been reached d t h r e s p e c t t o p r o v i s i o n s concerning t h e A r l i n e d e c i s i o n and i t s r a m i f i c a t i o n s . I would o b j e c t t o any e f f o r t t o add an amendment t o t h i s b i l l which would o v e r t u r n t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n t h e A r l i n e c a s e . The A r l i n e d e c i s i o n , handed down on March 3 , 1987, by a 7-to 2 margin, p r o t e c t s t h e r i g h t s of handicapped persons. It h o l d s t h a t , under s e c t i o n 504 of t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A c t , a person w i t h a c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e l i k e t u b e r c u l o s i s i s c o n s i d e r e d a handicapped per son. The Supreme Court concluded t h a t a l l handicapped p e r s o n s , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e w i t h c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e , have a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o go t o c o u r t and have a f a i r h e a r i n g . The Court d i d not s t a t e t h a t a l l such p e r s o n s a r e a u t o m a t i c a l l y e n t i t l e d t o a job. Only t h o s e p e r s o n s who do n o t pose a h e a l t h o r s a f e t y r i s k w u l d be s o e n t i t l e d . There i s n o t h i n g i n A r l i n e which t h r e a t e n s p u b l i c h e a l t h o r s a f e t y . The d e c i s i o n simply p r o t e c t s t h e 14/ 15/ - 134 Cong. Rec. S . 255 ( J a n . 28, 1988). 134 Cong. Rec. S. 255 ( J a n . 28, 1988). c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s o f handicapped p e r s o n s , and i t should be r e s p e c t e d by t h e S e n a t e . 161 - On F e b r u a r y 4 , 1988, subsequent t o t h e passage o f S. 557 by t h e S e n a t e , S e n a t o r Cranston made some comments r e g a r d i n g h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 504, He f i r s t t h e ArPine d e c i s i o n , and t h e amendment c o n c e r n i n g c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e s . noted t h e s t a t e m e n t s made by S e n a t o r s A m s t r o n g and Wilson and observed t h a t "1 b e l i e v e t h a t a number of p o i n t s t h e y made r e g a r d i n g t h e c a s e and c o v e r a g e f o r handicapped i n d i v i d u a l s under s e c t i o n 504 w a r r a n t a r e s p o n s e , and t h u s , a s t h e S e n a t e co-author w i t h S e n a t o r S t a f f o r d of s e c t i o n 504, I am t a k i n g t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y 171 t o respond and t o s e e k t o c l a r i f y t h e i s s u e s involved." Senator Cranston f i r s t - d i s c u s s e d t h e h i s t o r y o f s e c t i o n 504, c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e purpose o f t h e s e c t i o n "was t o e n s u r e t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s a r e e v a l u a t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y based on t h e i r abilities--rather t h a n o n l y on any d i s a b i l i t i e s t h a t t h e y might have--and that u n f a i r , b l a n k e t assumptions were n o t made about any i n d i v i d u a l , o r c a t e g o r i e s 18/ of i n d i v i d u a l s , because of a r e a l or perceived handicapping condition." - S e n a t o r Cranston t h e n proceeded t o d i s c u s s t h e 1978 amendment r e g a r d i n g d r u g a d d i c t s and a l c o h o l i c s and emphasized t h a t t h e 1978 amendment d i d n o t change e x i s t i n g law b u t simply c o d i f i e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e A t t o r n e y General and t h e S e c r e t a r y of H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n , and Welfare. He a l s o d i s c u s s e d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e d e f i n i t i o n and t h e term " o t h e r w i s e q u a l i f i e d . " Although t h e 1978 amendment l i t e r a l l y s t a t e d t h a t , f o r p u r p o s e s of s e c t i o n s 503 and 504 a s t h e y r e l a t e t o 16/ 17/ - 134 Cong. Rec. S.262 ( J a n . 28, 1988)(remarks o f S e n a t o r Kerry). 134 Cong. Rec. S.723 (Feb. 4 , 1988). 18/ Id. - employment, t h e d e f i n i t i o n of "handicapped i n d i v i d u a l " d i d not i n c l u d e a n a l c o h o l i c o r d r u g a b u s e r whose c u r r e n t use prevented performance o f t h e job o r c o n s t i t u t e d a d i r e c t t h r e a t t o p r o p e r t y o r s a f e t y , t h a t amendment d i d not r e s u l t i n any b a s i c change i n t h e p r o c e s s under s e c t i o n 504 by which i t i s determined whether t h e i n d i v i d u a l c l a i m i n g unlawful d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i s handicapped and whether t h a t i n d i v i d u a l i s " o t h e r w i s e q u a l i f i e d , " t a k i n g i n t o account--as i n t h e c a s e of a l l o t h e r handicapped pereone-any reasonable accommodations t h a t should be made t o e n a b l e him o r h e r t o perform t h e job s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . The p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t , t h e r e f o r e , i s t h e same a s i t would have been i f t h e amendment had provided a n e x c l u s i o n from a d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e term " o t h e r w i s e handicappedw--which i s n o t d e f i n e d s t a t u t o r i l y . 191 - Senator Cranston d i s c u s s e d t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n A r l i n e and emphasized t h a t " n e i t h e r t h e Supreme Court i n t h e A r l i n e d e c i s i o n nor I am s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e r i g h t s of handicapped i n d i v i d u a l s should be p r o t e c t e d t o t h e d e t r i m e n t of t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h o r t h a t o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s should be placed 201 a t r i s k of harm. - He t h e n quoted S e n a t o r Wilson's remarks on t h e amendment . d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e on S. 557 which i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e amendment wbuld make a n adjustment i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of handicapped person. S e n a t o r Cranston s t a t e d t h a t he found t h a t comment t o b e m i s l e a d i n g s i n c e he f e l t t h a t 211 t h e amendment "should r e s u l t i n no s u b s t a n t i v e change i n t h e law."S e n a t o r Cranston concluded h i s comments w i t h a comparison of t h e amendment t o S. 557 with t h e 1978 R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act amendment on d r u g a d d i c t s and alcoholics. " [ J l u s t a s t h e 1978 law provided a s e n s i b l e and balanced s o l u t i o n t o t h e concerns r a i s e d , s o does t h e Elarkin-Humphrey amendment. 191 - 134 Cong. Rec. S. 724 (Feb. 4, 1988). 201 Id. - 211 - 134 Cong. Rec. S. 7 2 5 (Feb. 4 , 1988). It would h e l p a l l a y concerns t h a t employers may have about employees w i t h c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e s and i n f e c t i o n s and would s t i l l p r o v i d e p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n 22/ f o r handicapped i n d i v i d u a l s . " The weight which a c o u r t would g i v e t o Senator C r a n s t o n ' s remarks i s somewhat u n c e r t a i n . S i n c e they were n o t made d u r i n g t h e a c t u a l d e b a t e , t h e y would most l i k e l y b e accorded l e s s weight t h a n remarks made d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e 231 However, S e n a t o r C r a n s t o n ' s p o s i t i o n a s one of t h e o r i g i n a l S e n a t o r itself. s p o n s o r s of s e c t i o n 504 would tend t o l e n d more weight t o h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e h i s t o r y of t h a t p r o v i s i o n . Senator Inouye made s e v e r a l remarks concerning s e c t i o n 5 0 4 and c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e s and t h e amendment t o S. 5 5 7 . H i s f i r s t remarks, e n t i t l e d "Statement on Amendment No. 1396 t o t h e C i v i l R i g h t s R e s t o r a t i o n Act," supported t h e approach t h e Supreme Court took i n t h e A r l i n e c a s e and s t a t e d : " [ i l n a d o p t i n g a n amendment c o n t r a r y t o t h e A r l i n e d e c i s i o n , we would embody t h e p r e j u d i c e s 241 t h a t we overcame and precluded i n t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act." This language c o u l d have been i n t e r p r e t e d t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e amendment a s adopted changed c u r r e n t law; however, Senator Inouye c l a r i f i e d h i s remarks on February 16. He noted t h e n t h a t h i s s t a t e m e n t "concerned a proposed amendment denying people w i t h i n f e c t i o u s d i s e a s e s p r o t e c t i o n under t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act o f 1973. It was i n a d v e r t e n t l y p r i n t e d under t h e t i t l e ' S t a t e m e n t on Amendment No. 23/ S i n g e r , 2A S u t h e r l a n d S t a t u t e s and S t a t u t o r y C o n s t r u c t i o n S48.13 ( 4 t h Ed. 1984). 241 - 134 Cong. Rec. S.321 ( F e b r u a r y 1, 1988). 1 3 9 6 , ' which i s c o m p l e t e l y harmonious w i t h t h e A r l i n e d e c i s i o n . 251 amendment numbered 1 3 9 6 , a s adopted." I supported t h e - S e n a t o r Humphrey, one o f t h e c o s p o n s o r s o f t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment, responded t o S e n a t o r C r a n s t o n ' s remarks on F e b r u a r y 1 8 , 1988. 26 / - H e o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e amendment was t h e r e s u l t o f a compromise and " [ l l i k e most compromises, t h e measure was n o t e n t i r e l y s a t i s f a c t o r y t o e i t h e r s i d e , r a t h e r i t s o u g h t t o s t r i k e a b a l a n c e t h a t would a d d r e s s a l e g i s l a t i v e 271 problem i n a manner a c c e p t a b l e t o b o t h s i d e s . " S e n a t o r Humphrey - proceeded t o q u o t e from t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e amendment and t h e c o l l o q u y . He t h e n d i s c u s s e d S e n a t o r C r a n s t o n ' s remarks and i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y i n a c c u r a t e l y a s s e s s ( e d ) t h e e f f e c t o f t h e Humphrey-Harkin amendment..,. [ T l h e remarks p l a c e d i n t h e Record b y t h e s e n i o r S e n a t o r from C a l i f o r n i a do n o t r e f l e c t my i n t e n t i n o f f e r i n g t h i s arnendinent n o r t h e a c t u a l e f f e c t o f t h e l a n g u a g e approved by t h e S e n a t e . I f t h e Humphrey-Harkin amendment had n o t r e s u l t e d i n some s u b s t a n t i v e change i n t h e law, i t would have b e e n a p o i n t l e s s e x e r c i s e . I n f a c t , t h e amendment d i d modify s u b s t a n t i v e l a w by s p e c i f y i n g t h a t persons with contagious d i s e a s e s c r e a t i n g d i r e c t h e a l t h t h r e a t s a r e not t o be c l a s s i f i e d as " i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h h a n d i c a p s " under t h e employment p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act. I n t h a t r e s p e c t , I must p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h i s amendment i s v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t c o n t a i n e d i n H.R. 1396, a measure i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e House by R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Dannemeyer d e a l i n g w i t h t h i s same problem o f c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e s . N e i t h e r t h e Humphrey-Harkin amendment n o r t h e Dannemeyer b i l l were, o r a r e i n t e n d e d m e r e l y t o c o d i f y t h e s t a t u s quo i n t h i s a r e a . The l a n g u a g e o f t h e s e m e a s u r e s i s q u i t e c l e a r , and p o s t f a c t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s should not be construed t o a l t e r t h e i r a c t u a l i n t e n t o r effect. 28/ - 25/ - 134 Cong. Rec. S.772 (Feb. 1 6 , 1988). 26/ 134 271 Id. - Cong. Rec. S.970 (Feb. 18, 1988). S e n a t o r Humphrey's s t a t e m e n t was n o t j o i n e d by t h e o t h e r cosponsor o f t h e amendment, S e n a t o r Harkin. R a t h e r , S e n a t o r Harkin i n s e r t e d h i s own 29/ s t a t e m e n t i n t h e Record. I n h i s s t a t e m e n t , S e n a t o r Harkin a g r e e d w i t h S e n a t o r Humphrey t h a t t h e i n t e n t and e f f e c t o f t h e amendment were made c l e a r by t h e language o f t h e amendment i t s e l f . However, a l t h o u g h h e d i d n o t e t h a t a new p a r t t o t h e s t a t u t e was added by t h e amendment, he s t a t e d t h a t " t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e amendment was t o c l a r i f y -- and n o t t o modify i n any way -- t h e pro- t e c t i o n s o f s e c t i o n 504, a s t h e y a p p l y t o i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e s 30 / o r i n £ect i o n s . I n a d d i t i o n , S e n a t o r Harkin s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d t h a t "we .*- b e l i e v e d t h a t i t was a p p r o p r i a t e t o c l a r i f y t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y of s e c t i o n 504 t o p e r s o n s w i t h c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e s and i n f e c t i o n s . It was n o t o u r i n t e n t t o change t h e s u b s t a n t i v e s t a n d a r d s of s e c t i o n 504, a s t h e y a p p l y t o s u c h 311 individuals " He r e i t e r a t e d t h e t h r e e p o i n t s made i n t h e c o l l o q u y . -- t h a t t h e amendment language was t o d e a l w i t h a c o n c e r n comparable t o t h a t d e a l t w i t h i n t h e 1978 amendments, t h a t t h e amendment d i d n o t h i n g t o change t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s r e g a r d i n g r e a s o n a b l e accommodations, and t h a t t h e two-step p r o c e s s o f s e c t i o n 504 c o n t i n u e s t o a p p l y i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n -- and emphasized t h a t t h e a m e n b e n t ' s purpose, l i k e t h a t of t h e 1978 amendments "was t o r e a s s u r e employers" r e g a r d i n g t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s t h a t c u r r e n t l y e x i s t e d i n law t o p r o t e c t 321 p u b l i c h e a l t h and safety."- 291 - 134 Cong. Rec. S. 1738 (March 2, 1988). 301 - 134 Cong. Rec. S. 1739 (March 2, 1988). 311 - Id. - 321 - 134 Cong. Rec. S. 1740 (March 2, 1988). C. House L e g i s l a t i v e H i s t o r y The House d e b a t e d and passed S. 557 on March 2, 1988. Under t h e r u l e s f o r d e b a t e , no amendments were allowed t o t h e Senate b i l l e x c e p t f o r a n 33 I amendment i n t h e n a t u r e o f a s u b s t i t u t e which d i d not pass. The remarks made i n t h e House on t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e o r i n f e c t i o n amendment l a r g e l y p a r a l l e l t h e p o i n t s made i n t h e Senate Humphrey-Harkin colloquy. S e v e r a l members who spoke i n s u p p o r t o f t h e amendment made t h e p o i n t s t h a t t h e amendment put t h e 341 Arline standards i n t o s t a t u t o r y language, t h a t t h e amendment was p a t t e r n e d 35 - - / a f t e r t h e 1978 amendment on alcoholism and d r u g abuse, t h a t t h e amendment 36/ codified the otherwise quali fied standard, t h a t t h e amendment d i d n o t 37 1 change t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r r e a s o n a b l e accommodation, and t h a t t h e two- - - - s t e p p r o c e s s of d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e r e i s d i s c r i m i n a t i o n under s e c t i o n 504 38 / i s unchanged . 331 - 134 Cong. Rec. H. 555 (March 2 , 1988). 341 134 Cong. Rec. H. 560 (March 2, 1988)(remarks of Rep. Coelho); 134 cZg. Rec. H. 567 (March 2, 1988)(semarks of Rep. Hawkins); 134 Cong. Rec. H. 571 (March 2, 1988)(remarks of Rep. J e f f o r d s ) ; 134 Cong. Rec. H. 574 (March 2, 1988)(remarks of Rep. Owens); 134 Cong. Rec. H. 573 (March 2 , 1988) (remarks of Rep. Weiss); 134 Cong. Rec. Be 575 (March 2, 1988)(remarks of Rep. Waxman); 134 Cong. Rec. H. 583-584 (March 2 , 1988)(remarks o f Rep. Edwards). 351 134 Cong. Rec. H. 560 (March 2, 1988)(remarks of Rep. Coelho); 134 cong. Rec. H. 567 (March 2, 1988)(remarks of Rep. Eawkins); 134 Cong. Rec. B. 571 (March 2, 1988)(remarks o f Rep. J e f f o r d s ) ; 134 Cong. Rec. 8. 573 (March 2, 1988)(remarks of Rep. Wefss). 134 361 134 Cong. Rec. 8. 567 (March 2, 1988)(remarks o f Rep. Hawkins); Rec. 8. 583-584 (March 2, 1988)(remarks of Rep. Edwards). cong. - 37/ 134 Cong. Rec. 8. 573 (March 2, 1988)(remarks o f Rep. Weiss); 134 Cong. Rec. H. 575 (March 2, 1988)(remarks of Rep. Waranan); 134 Cong. Rec. H. 583-584 (March 2, 1 9 8 8 ) ( r a n a r k s of Rep. Edwards). 134 381 134 Cong. Rec. H. 573 March 2 , 1988)(remarks of Rep. Weiss); Rec. H. 575 (March 2, 1988)(remarks of Rep. Waxman), cong. S e v e r a l o f t h e remarks i n t h e House d e b a t e s p e c i f i c a l l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e language of t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment w a s i n t e n d e d t o a s s u r e t h a t H I V i n f e c t e d p e r s o n s , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e who were n o t m a n i f e s t i n g p h y s i c a l 39 -.1 symptoms o f t h e i r d i s e a s e , were covered under s e c t i o n 504. R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Dannemeyer spoke i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e c o n t a g i o u s 40 1 d i s e a s e amendment. He i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n t h e 1978 R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act amendments c o n c e r n i n g d r u g a d d i c t s and a l c o h o l i c s Congress had c o r r e c t e d t h e " a b e r r a t i o n " o f i n c l u d i n g drug a d d i c t s and a l c o h o l i c s under s e c t i o n 504 "by s a y i n g a s a m a t t e r o f p o l i c y t h a t t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f a handicapped p e r s o n 411 d i d n o t extend t o a d r u g a d d i c t o r a n a l c o h o l i c . " M r . Dannemeyer a r g u e d t h a t s i n c e medical s c i e n c e i s n o t e x a c t , t h e f e d e r a l government s h o u l d n o t e n f o r c e n o n d i s c r i m i n a t i o n p r o t e c t i o n s f o r p e r s o n s w i t h AIDS. He concluded by a r g u i n g t h a t t h e A r l i n e d e c i s i o n should n o t be allowed t o s t a n d . IV. EFFECT ON CURRENT LAW OF THE AMENDMENT ON CONTAGIQUS DISEASES AND INFECTIONS A. Introduction The major i s s u e p r e s e n t e d by t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment and by i t s l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y i s t o what e x t e n t , i f any, t h e amendment would change c u r r e n t law. It would appear t h a t t h e p r e s e n t l a w vould n o t b e c o n t r a d i c t e d by s u c h a n amendment b u t t h a t , i n t h e words o f t h e Humphrey-Harkin c o l l o q u y , t h e amendment i n d i c a t e s a c o n g r e s s i o n a l wish " t o a s s u r e employers t h a t 39/ 134 Cong. Rec. 8. 561 (March 2, 1988)(remarks o f Rep. Coelho); 134 c o n g . R e c . H. 573 (March 2 , 1988)(remarks of Rep. Weisa); 134 Cong. Rec. H. 574 (March 2, 1988)(remarks o f Rep. Owens); 134 Cong. Rec. H. 575 (March 2, 1988) (remarks o f Rep. Waxman). 40/ 411 - 134 Cong. Rec. H. 579-580 (March 2 , 1988). 134 Cong. Rec. H. 579 (March 2 , 1988). they a r e not required t o h i r e o r r e t a i n i n d i v i d u a l s with a contagious d i s e a s e o r i n f e c t i o n when such i n d i v i d u a l s pose a d i r e c t t h r e a t t o t h e 42/ health or s a f e t y of other individuals." However, a r g u a b l y t h e r e a r e a few a m b i g u i t i e s r a i s e d by t h e amendment, p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n c e r n i n g t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e amendment a t t e m p t s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i s s u e of s e c t i o n 504 a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o p e r s o n s who a r e o n l y c o n t a g i o u s and who have no p h y s i c a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f d i s e a s e , t h e a n a l o g y t o t h e 1978 R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act amendment c o n c e r n i n g d r u g a d d i c t s and a l c o h o l i c s , and t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e o t h e r w i s e q u a l i f i e d and r e a s o n a b l e accommodation r e q u i r e m e n t s . In o r d e r t o e x p i o r e t h e s e a m b i g u i t i e s , i t i s f i r s t n e c e s s a r y t o b r i e f l y examine t h e c u r r e n t s t a t e o f s e c t i o n 504 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w i t h s p e c i f i c emphasis on t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s r u l i n g i n School Board of Nassau County v . A r l i n e , 94 L.Ed.2d 307 (1987). I n A r l i n e , t h e Supreme Court h e l d t h a t a p e r s o n w i t h t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e of t u b e r c u l o s i s may he a handicapped i n d i v i d u a l u n d e r s e c t i o n 504 and t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t a p e r s o n w i t h a r e c o r d of a n impairment i s a l s o c o n t a g i o u s d o e s n o t l i m i t t h e c o v e r a g e o f the s e c t i o n . The Court f u r t h e r found t h a t t h e i s s u e of whether s u c h c o n t a g i o u s i n d i v i d u a l s a r e p r o t e c t e d by s e c t i o n 504 i s d e t e r m i n e d by whether s u c h a n i n d i v i d u a l i s " o t h e r w i s e qualified." The Court s p e c i f i c a l l y n o t e d t h a t t h e c a s e p r e s e n t e d d i d n o t raise t h e i s s u e o f "whether a c a r r i e r o f a c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e such a s AIDS 421 - 134 Cong. Rec. S.256 ( J a n . 28, 1988)(emphasis a d d e d ) . could be c o n s i d e r e d t o have a p h y s i c a l impairment, o r whether s u c h a person would be c o n s i d e r e d , s o l e l y on t h e b a s i s o f c o n t a g i o u s n e s s , a handicapped person a s d e f i n e d i n t h e Act." S e c t i o n 504 was d e s c r i b e d by t h e Court i n A r l i n e a s " c a r e f u l l y s t r u c t u r e d . " The d e f i n i t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l w i t h h a n d i c a p s i s broad b u t s e c t i o n 504 c o v e r s "The f a c t o n l y i n d i v i d u a l s who a r e b o t h handicapped and o t h e r w i s e q u a l i f i e d . - t h a t some p e r s o n s who have c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e s may pose a s e r i o u s h e a l t h t h r e a t t o o t h e r s under c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s d o e s n o t j u s t i f y e x c l u d i n g from t h e a l l persons w i t h a c t u a l o r p e r c e i v e d c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e s coverage o f t h e Act - ." The Court a l s o observed i n f o o t n o t e 14 t h a t t h e " c a r e f u l l y s t r u c t u r e d " approach o f s e c t i o n 504 was r e a f f i r m e d by Congress i n t h e 1978 amendments. The q u e s t i o n o f whether an i n d i v i d u a l i s o t h e r w i s e q u a l i f i e d was found t o n e c e s s i t a t e an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d two-step process. F i r s t , findings o f f a c t must b e made c o n c e r n i n g t h e n a t u r e o f t h e r i s k , t h e d u r a t i o n o f t h e r i s k , t h e s e v e r i t y o f t h e r i s k , and t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s t h e d i s e a s e w i l l be t r a n s m i t t e d . Second, c o u r t s a r e t o e v a l u a t e , i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e s e medical f i n d i n g s , whether r e a s o n a b l e a c c o m o d a t i o n by t h e employer 43 / i s possible. - The o t h e r element o f e x i s t i n g s e c t i o n 504 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which i s r e l e v a n t t o t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment i s t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act p r o v i s i o n r e l a t i n g t o d r u g a d d i c t s and a l c o h o l i c s . 43/ For a more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n o f A r l i n e see J o n e s . "School Board of ~ a = a u v. A r l i n e : A Person w i t h t h e Contagious D i s e a s e o f T u b e r c u l o s i s May B e Covered Under S e c t i o n 504 of t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act o f 1973." CRS Rept. No. 87-2388 (March 4 , 1987). ~ T h i s p r o v i s i o n i s a l s o found i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f handicapped i n d i v i d u a l and s t a t e s t h a t t h e g e n e r a l d e f i n i t i o n o f handicapped p e r s o n d o e s n o t i n c l u d e f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f s e c t i o n s 503 and 504 "any i n d i v i d u a l who i s a n a l c o h o l i c o r d r u g a b u s e r whose c u r r e n t use o f a l c o h o l o r d r u g s p r e v e n t s such i n d i v i d u a l from performing t h e d u t i e s o f t h e j o b i n q u e s t i o n o r whose employment, by r e a s o n o f s u c h c u r r e n t a l c o h o l o r d r u g a b u s e , would c o n s t i t u t e a d i r e c t 44/ t h r e a t t o property o r the s a f e t y of others." The l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f t h i s p r o v i s i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t was " d e s i g n e d t o c l e a r up some m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s a b o u t t h e employment r i g h t s o f a l c o h o l i c s and d r u g a d d d i c t s under t h e a c t , and t o make a b s o l u t e l y c l e a r t h a t employers covered by t h e a c t must n o t d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t those persons having a h i s t o r y o r c o n d i t i o n of alcoh o l i s m o r d r u g a b u s e who a r e q u a l i f i e d f o r t h e p a r t i c u l a r employment t h e y 45/ seek." The l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e amendment was i n e f f e c t c o d i f y i n g t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n g i v e n t o s e c t i o n 504 b y t h e A t t o r n e y 46 / General i n an Attorney General's opinion. The c a s e s which have d i s c u s s e d - 441 - 29 U.S.C. S706(8). 45/ - 124 Cong. Rec. 37509 ( 1 9 7 8 ) ( S t a t e w e n t o f S e n a t o r W i l l i a m s ) . 4 6 / 124 Cong. Rec. S . 19001 ( O c t . 1 4 , 1978)(Remarks o f Sen. W i l l i a m s ) . No. 1 2 ( A p r i l 1 2 , 1 9 7 7 ) , concluded The ~ K o r n eG e~n e r a l ' s o p i n i o n , 4 3 O.A.G. t h a t a l c o h o l i c s and d r u g a d d i c t s were covered under s e c t i o n 504 i f t h e y were d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t s o l e l y because o f t h e i r s t a t u s a s drug a d d i c t s o r a l c o h o l i c s and s t a t e d : " o u r c o n e l u s i o n t h a t d c o h s l i c s and d r u g a d d i c t s a r e 'handicapped i n d i v i d u a l s ' f o r p u r p o s e s s f s e c t i o n 504 d o e s n o t mean t h a t s u c h a p e r s o n must be h i r e d o r p e r m i t t e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a f e d e r a l l y a s s i s t e d program i f t h e m a n i f e s t i a t i o n s o f h i s c o n d i t i o n s p r e v e n t him from e f f e c t i v e l y p e r f o r m i n g t h e j o b i n q u e s t i o n o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n would be unduly d i s r u p t i v e t o o t h e r s , and s e c t i o n 5 0 4 presumably would n o t r e q u i r e u n r e a l i s t i c accommodations At 2. i n such a s i t u a t i o n . " s e c t i o n 504 c o v e r a g e r e g a r d i n g employment d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t a l c o h o l i c s and d r u g a d d i c t s have g e n e r a l l y followed t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which was g i v e n by t h e 471 Attorney General's opinion. It should be noted t h a t t h e 1978 amendment, l i k e - t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment t o S. 557, i s l i m i t e d t o employment. It d o e s n o t d i s c u s s s i t u a t i o n s such a s a c c e s s t o e d u c a t i o n a l b e n e f i t s a l t h o u g h i t h a s been argued t h a t by i m p l i c a t i o n t h e p r o v i s i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t d r u g a d d i c t i o n and a l c o h o l i s m a r e i n c l u d e d a s handicapping c o n d i t i o n s f o r c o n t e x t s o t h e r t h a n 481 employment. The Supreme Court h a s r e c e n t l y heard o r a l argument i n a c a s e - i n v o l v i n g whether a Veterans A d m i n i s t r a t i o n r e g u l a t i o n t h a t d e f i n e s a l c o h o l i s m a s " w i l l f u l misconduct" v i o l a t e s s e c t i o n 504 by d i s c r i m i n a t i n g a g a i n s t 491 handicapped p e r s o n s . The C o u r t ' s r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s c a s e c o u l d p r o v i d e 471 Davis v . Bucher, 451 F. Supp. 791 (E.D.Pa. 1978); Whitaker v . Board 1978); o f ~ i g h e rE d u c a t i o n of t h e C i t y o f N e w York, 461 F. Supp. 99 (E.D.N.Y. Healy v . Bergman, 609 F. Supp. 1448 (D. Mass. 1985). Burgdorf , The L e g a l R i g h t s of Handicapped P e r s o n s 491 Traynor v . Turnage, 791 F.2d 226 (2d C i r . 1986); McKelvey v. Turnage, 792 l ? X d 194 (D.C.Cir. 1 9 8 4 ) , c a s e s c o n s o l i d a t e d and c e r t . g r a n t e d , No. 86-737 (March 9 , 1987). Another i s s u e p r e s e n t e d by t h e c a s e i s whether 38 U.S.C. § 2 1 1 ( a ) , which s t a t e s t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e VA A d m i n i s t r a t o r on any q u e s t i o n o f l a w o r f a c t under any l a w a d m i n i s t e r e d by t h e VA p r o v i d i n g b e n e f i t s f o r v e t e r a n s s h a l l be f i n a l , p r e c l u d e s t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s from d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e V A ' s w i l l f u l misconduct r e g u l a t i o n v i o l a t e s s e c t i o n 504. For a more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e 1978 amendment c o n c e r n i n g d r u g a d d i c t s and a l c o h o l i c s s e e J o n e s , "Proposed Amendment t o t h e D e f i n i t i o n o f Handicapped P e r s o n s Regarding A l c o h o l i c s and Drug Abusers," CRS Rept. (September 26, 1986). some d e f i n i t i v e guidance on t h e s e c t i o n 504 coverage o f a l c o h o l i c s and d r u g a d d i c t s i n nonemployment s i t u a t i o n s . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment t o S . 557 i s found t o be p a t t e r n e d on t h e 1978 amendment, t h e C o u r t ' s language c o u l d have an e f f e c t o n t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a s w e l l . Obviously, language i n t h e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y of S. 557 c o n c e r n i n g t h i s i s s u e c o u l d be o f c r u c i a l importance i n r e s o l v i n g t h e i s s u e . B. C o d i f i c a t i o n of S e c t i o n 504 S t a n d a r d s The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment t o S. 557 should begin w i t h an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e language o f t h e amendment i t s e l f . As s t a t e d e a r l i e r , t h e amendment s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e s t h a t a s s e c t i o n 503 and 504 r e l a t e t o employment, t h e term "does not i n c l u d e an i n d i v i d u a l who h a s a c u r r e n t l y c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e o r i n f e c t i o n and who, by r e a s o n of such d i s e a s e o r i n f e c t i o n , would c o n s t i t u t e a d i r e c t t h r e a t t o t h e h e a l t h o r s a f e t y o f o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s o r who, by r e a s o n of t h e c u r r e n t l y c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e o r i n f e c t i o n , i s unable t o perform t h e d u t i e s of t h e job." Arguably, t h i s language i s a c o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 504 s t a n d a r d s a s expressed i n A r l i n e where t h e Court noted t h a t i n o r d e r t o b e covered by s e c t i o n 504, a handicapped i n d i v i d u a l must b e o t h e r w i s e q u a l i f i e d and t h a t t h i s requirement i n c o r p o r a t e d q u e s t i o n s concerning t h e r i s k s posed by t h e i n d i v i d u a l and t h e concept o f r e a s o n a b l e accommodation. On t h e o t h e r hand, i t could b e argued t h a t , by amending t h e d e f i n i t i o n a l s e c t i o n , t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment would l i m i t from coverage any p e r s o n with a c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e who poses a d i r e c t t h r e a t p r i o r t o r e a c h i n g t h e i s s u e o f whether t h a t i n d i v i d u a l was o t h e r w i s e q u a l i f i e d . T h i s , i t c o u l d be argued, would e l i m i n a t e t h e requirement t h a t a n employer d e t e r m i n e i f r e a s o n a b l e accommodation might e l i m i n a t e t h e r i s k s i n c e t h e concept of r e a s o n a b l e accommodation i s p a r t of t h e " o t h e r w i s e q u a l i f i e d " t e s t a s e n u n c i a t e d by t h e Supreme Court. It would appear from a n examination of t h e language of t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment and i t s l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y t h a t t h e f i r s t argument t h a t t h e language i s a c o d i f i c a t i o n of e x i s t i n g l a w i s t h e s t r o n g e r argument. Although t h e amendment i s placed i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n a l s e c t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e , i t , l i k e t h e 1978 amendment, i s d i r e c t e d o n l y towards s e c t i o n s 503 and 504. However, i t d o e s n o t e l i m i n a t e t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e 501 more g e n e r a l d e f i n i t i o n which a p p e a r s p r i o r t o t h e 1978 amendment. It c o u l d be argued t h a t t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment i s more a k i n t o t h e s e c t i o n 504 s u b s t a n t i v e requirement t h a t handicapped i n d i v i d u a l s b e o t h e r w i s e q u a l i f i e d t h a n i t i s t o t h e more g e n e r a l d e f i n i t i o n and t h a t t h e r e f o r e i t should b e viewed a s p a r t of t h e second s t e p of t h e two s t e p s e c t i o n 504 51 / analysis. The l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment would a l s o appear t o s u p p o r t t h i s argument. The most s i g n i f i c a n t p i e c e o f l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y r e g a r d i n g t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment i s t h e c o l l o q u y between t h e two s p o n s o r s o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n , 501 sentence purposes physical person's ( i i i ) is T h i s p a r t of t h e e x i s t i n g d e f i n i t i o n s t a t e s : " S u b j e c t t o t h e second of t h i s subparagraph, t h e t e r m ' handicapped i n d i v i d u a l ' means, f o r of s u b c h a p t e r s I V and V o f t h i s c h a p t e r , any p e r s o n who ( i ) h a s a o r mental impairment which s u b s t a n t i a l l y l i m i t s o n e o r more o f s u c h major l i f e a c t i v i t i e s , ( i i ) h a s a r e c o r d of such impairment, o r regarded a s having such a n impairment." 29 U . S . C . § 7 0 6 ( 8 ) ( ~ ) . 511 A s h a s been noted i n t h e d e b a t e s on t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment, t h e two-step p r o c e s s i n v o l v e s f i r s t d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e i n d i v i d u a l a l l e g i n g d i s c r i m i n a t i o n under s e c t i o n 504 i s handicapped and t h e n d e t e r m i n i n g whether he o r s h e i s o t h e r w i s e q u a l i f i e d . S e n a t o r s Humphrey and Hawkins. 521 - A s noted i n t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n on l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y , t h i s c o l l o q u y s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e s t h a t t h e amendment would do n o t h i n g t o change c u r r e n t l a w r e g a r d i n g r e a s o n a b l e accommodation. Subsequently t h e c o l l o q u y s t a t e d t h a t t h e amendment d o e s n o t change t h e two-step p r o c e s s by which under s e c t i o n 504 a person i s f i r s t determined t o be handicapped and t h e n q u e s t i o n s concerning o t h e r w i s e q u a l i f i e d a r e a d d r e s s e d . It could b e argued t h a t t h i s second s t a t e m e n t c o u l d a f f e c t t h e r e a s o n a b l e accommodation requirement b u t t h i s argument would probably n o t be s u c c e s s f u l s i n c e r e a s o n a b l e accommodation i s more s p e c i f i c a l l y addressed e l s e w h e r e i n t h e colloquy. The c o l l o q u y a l s o emphasizes a s i m i l a r i t y w i t h t h e 1978 amendment c o n c e r n i n g d r u g a d d i c t s and a l c o h o l i c s and t h e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f this 1978 p r o v i s i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s p r o v i s i o n was added simply t o c o d i f y e x i s t i n g law, n o t t o change i t . Thus, t h i s c o l l o q u y l a n g u a g e , l i k e t h e s t a t u t o r y language, would s u p p o r t t h e argument t h a t t h e amendment r e s t a t e s e x i s t i n g law. S e v e r a l o t h e r s t a t e m e n t s were made p r i o r o r a f t e r t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f S. 557; however, t h e weight which i s g i v e n t o t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s i s l e s s t h a n t h a t which would be g i v e n t o s t a t e m e n t s by sponsors. The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s 5 2 1 The s t a t e m e n t s of a sponsor of a b i l l have been d e s c r i b e d a s Newell v. F e d e r a l Energy A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 4 4 5 F. Supp. 80 (D.D.C. 1977). However, t h e l e a d i n g t r e a t i s e on s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n h a s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s o f s p o n s o r s should be c a r e f u l l y e v a l u a t e d f o r two r e a s o n s : (1) i n a c t u a l p r a c t i c e t h e l e g i s l a t o r may n o t b e a n e x p e r t on t h e b i l l and ( 2 ) even where t h e sponsor h a s s p e c i f i c knowledge of t h e b i l l , h i s s t a t e m e n t s "may s a c r i f i c e complete candor t o S i n g e r , 2A S u t h e r l a n d S t a t u t e s p a r t i s a n i n t e r e s t i n enactment of t h e b i l l . " and S t a t u t o r y C o n s t r u c t i o n 548.15 ( 4 t h Ed. 1984). " p r e g a nn t v i t h s i g n 1 f i c a n c e ." i s t h a t l e g i s l a t i v e d e b a t e s e x p r e s s t h e i n d i v i d u a l views o f l e g i s l a t o r s and do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i n d i c a t e agreement o r disagreement by o t h e r members o f 531 the legislature. The remarks may be e n t i t l e d t o some weight a l t h o u g h t h e e x a c t weight may depend on a n a n a l y s i s o f how w e l l t h e remarks seem t o r e p r e s e n t 54 I t h e views o f t h e e n t i r e l e g i s l a t u r e . - The s t a t e m e n t by S e n a t o r Wilson p r i o r t o t h e a c t u a l i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment where he i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t would make "an a d j u s t m e n t 551 i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e p h r a s e 'handicapped person' c o u l d be used t o ...."- s u p p o r t a n argument t h a t t h e amendment makes some change i n c u r r e n t law. On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e comments of S e n a t o r Annstrong- i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e amendment would make a m a r g i n a l d i f f e r e n c e . 56 I - T h i s comment c o u l d b e i n t e r p r e t e d a s e i t h e r meaning t h e r e h a s b e e n a s l i g h t change o r , more probably i n l i g h t o f t h e c o l l o q u y l a n g u a g e , a s meaning t h e amendment s i m p l y c o d i f i e s e x i s t i n g law r e g a r d i n g s e c t i o n 504 s t a n d a r d s . The comments made by S e n a t o r Cranston f o l l o w i n g t h e passage of S. 557 a r e p r o b a b l y n o t e n t i t l e d t o s i g n i f i c a n t weight s i n c e t h e y were n o t made d u r i n g d e b a t e on t h e p r o v i s i o n b u t i t could be argued t h a t t h e y s u p p o r t t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t t h e amendment c o d i f i e s e x i s t i n g law. S i m i l a r l y , t h e comments made by Senator Inouye c o u l d be r e a d a s s u p p o r t i n g t h e argument t h a t t h e amendment was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h A r l i n e . - 531 Id. 541 Id. - 548.13. 551 134 Cong. 561 - Rec. S. 255 ( J a n . 28, 1988). 134 Cong. Rec. S. 254 ( J a n . 28, 1988). In addition, the s t a t e m e n t s made i n t h e House d e b a t e s would appear t o s u p p o r t t h e argument t h a t t h e amendment c o d i f i e s s e c t i o n 504 s t a n d a r d s a s d e s c r i b e d by t h e 57/ Supreme Court i n A r l i n e . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e c o l l o q u y , b o t h o f t h e sponsors of t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment made s e p a r a t e f l o o r s t a t e m e n t s subsequent t o t h e passage of S. 557. A comparison of t h e s e f l o o r s t a t e m e n t s i l l u s t r a t e s t h e p o l i t i c a l n a t u r e of t h e compromise and t h e s t a t e m e n t s appear t o be c o n t r a d i c t o r y c o n c e r n i n g t h e i n t e n t of Congress about changing e x i s t i n g s t a n d a r d s under s e c t i o n 504. Senator Humphrey i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e amendment was n o t intended t o c o d i f y t h e s t a t u s quo b u t was n o t s p e c i f i c about t h e e x a c t d i f f e r e n c e s ; Senator Harkin i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i n t e n t was n o t t o modify i n any way t h e p r o t e c t i o n s o f s e c t i o n 504 a s t h e y a p p l y t o persons with contagious d i s e a s e s o r i n f e c t i o n s . Although i t could be argued t h a t comments made by t h e s p o n s o r s o f t h e amendment a r e e n t i t l e d t o weight when i n t e r p r e t i n g a p r o v i s i o n , t h e c o n f l i c t i n g comments and t h e g e n e r a l r u l e s o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n governing t h e s t a t e m e n t s of s p o n s o r s would appear t o m i t i g a t e a g a i n s t g r e a t weight b e i n g g i v e n t o e i t h e r o f t h e s e statements. A s was noted above, s t a t e m e n t s by s p o n s o r s must b e e v a l u a t e d c a u t i o u s l y s i n c e t h e sponsor may n o t i n f a c t be a s f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e l e g i s l a t i o n a s might b e assumed and even where t h e sponsor i s f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e l e g i s l a t i o n , 581 - -, he o r s h e may b e a t t e m p t i n g t o advance a c e r t a i n p a r t i s a n i n t e r e s t . 571 - (4th See s u p r a , n. 34. 581 S i n g e r , 2A S u t h e r l a n d S t a t u t e s and S t a t u t o r y C o n s t r u c t i o n S48.15 1984) ed. I n l i g h t of t h e seeming c o n t r a d i c t i o n s and t h e o b v i o u s l y p o l i t i c a l n a t u r e of t h e compromise, i t would appear t h a t c a u t i o n should be e x e r c i s e d i n p l a c i n g weight on e i t h e r of t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s and t h a t t h e c o l l o q u y where b o t h s p o n s o r s were i n agreement i s t h e more d e f i n i t i v e p i e c e of l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y . This c o l l o q u y would appear t o s u p p o r t t h e argument t h a t t h e amendment c o d i f i e d e x i s t i n g s e c t i o n 504 s t a n d a r d s . C. S e c t i o n 504 Coverage of P e r s o n s who a r e Contagious o r I n f e c t i o u s b u t who do not Manifest P h y s i c a l Symptoms o f t h e i r D i s e a s e It would appear t h a t from t h e language of t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment and from i t s l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y t h a t t h e i n t e n t was t o c o d i f y t h e e x i s t i n g s t a n d a r d s a p p l i c a b l e t o s e c t i o n 504 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The q u e s t i o n c a n b e r a i s e d , however, concerning what t h e s e s t a n d a r d s a r e . To some e x t e n t , t h e answer i s f a i r l y s t r a i g h t - f o r w a r d : t h e e x i s t i n g s e c t i o n 504 s t a n d a r d s a r e t h o s e d i s c u s s e d by t h e Supreme Court i n A r l i n e . However, an i n t e r e s t i n g i s s u e i s r a i s e d by t h e use of t h e p h r a s e " c u r r e n t l y c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e o r i n f e c t i o n " i n t h e amendment. I n A r l i n e , t h e Supreme Court s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f u s e d t o d e c i d e whether persons who were c o n t a g i o u s b u t d i d not m a n i f e s t p h y s i c a l symptoms o f t h e i r d i s e a s e , such a s t h o s e p e r s o n s who t e s t p o s i t i v e f o r H I V a n t i b o d i e s , would b e c o n s i d e r e d t o be handicapped p e r s o n s under s e c t i o n 504. It could b e argued t h a t t h e u s e of t h e p h r a s e " c u r r e n t l y c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e o r i n f e c t i o n " would i n d i c a t e t h a t such persons would b e covered by s e c t i o n 504. To b u t t r e s s t h i s argument, i t c o u l d be noted t h a t t h e c o l l o q u y d o e s n o t n e g a t e t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and t h a t such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would n o t n e c e s s a r i l y change p r e s e n t law s i n c e t h e r e i s some lower c o u r t s u p p o r t f o r 591 i n c l u d i n g only c o n t a g i o u s persons w i t h i n coverage of s e c t i o n 504. Statements - made d u r i n g t h e House c o n s i d e r a t i o n of S. 557 could a l s o b e used t o s u p p o r t t h i s argument. I n a d d i t i o n , i t could be argued t h a t t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment would c o d i f y o n l y t h e s e c t i o n 504 s t a n d a r d s , t h a t i s s t e p two o f t h e 60 I two s t e p p r o c e s s , but n o t s t e p one r e l a t i n g t o who i s c o n s i d e r e d a handicapped - per son. On t h e o t h e r hand, i t would appear c l e a r from t h e amendment i n t r o d u c e d by Senator Humphrey i n committee and t h e g e n e r a l comments by Senator Armstrong t h a t t h e i r p r e f e r r e d approach was t o l i m i t t h e e f f e c t o f t h e A r l i n e d e c i s i o n . The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e language i n t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment t h a t was passed t o i n c l u d e persons with p o s i t i v e H I V t e s t s would appear t o n o t c o n t r a d i c t A r l i n e but would expand upon t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n g i v e n i n the decision. The Court i n A r l i n e s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f u s e d t o r u l e on t h e i s s u e of whether such persons were covered by s e c t i o n 504. It c o u l d b e argued t h a t i t would have been u n l i k e l y f o r S e n a t o r Humphrey t o have changed h i s p o s i t i o n from t h a t o f l i m i t i n g A r l i n e t o expanding upon t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o i n c l u d e 5 9 1 I n Local 1812, American F e d e r a l of Government Employees v. 1987), a postu n i t e r ~ t a t e sDepartment o f S t a t e , 662 F. Supp. 50 (D.D.C. A r l i n e d e c i s i o n , t h e i s s u e was r a i s e d concerning whether s e c t i o n 504 covered H I V p o s i t i v e p e r s o n s s e e k i n g c e r t a i n p o s i t i o n s i n t h e S t a t e Department. Although t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d a motion f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e u s e o f t h e test f o r H I V i n f e c t i o n by t h e S t a t e Department " a p p e a r s r a t i o n a l and c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o f i t n e s s f o r duty" and t h a t a n t i b o d y p o s i t i v e p e r s o n s were n o t " o t h e r w i s e q u a l i f i e d w under s e c t i o n 504 f o r employment i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n , t h e c o u r t appeared t o assume t h a t such i n d i v i d u a l s would meet t h e t h r e s h o l d requirement o f b e i n g handicapped under t h e s t a t u t e . 601 - See s u p r a , p . 3. persons who a r e s o l e l y c o n t a g i o u s o r i n f e c t i o u s . However, t h i s argument i s s p e c u l a t i v e and t h e b e s t i n d i c a t i o n s f o r t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e language remain t h e language i t s e l f and t h e c o l l o q u y . D. 1978 Amendments Concerning Drug A d d i c t s and A l c o h o l i c s A t s e v e r a l p o i n t s d u r i n g t h e S e n a t e and House d e b a t e s on S. 557 t h e s i m i l a r i t y between t h e 1978 R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act amendments c o n c e r n i n g d r u g a d d i c t s and a l c o h o l i c s and t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e and i n f e c t i o n s 611 amendment i s s t r e s s e d . The main i s s u e r a i s e d by t h i s p a t t e r n i n g of t h e c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e amendment on t h e 1978 amendment i s t o what e x t e n t , i f any, t h i s would have i m p l i c a t i o n s i n a r e a s o t h e r t h a n employment. 621 A s noted above, t h e Supreme Court h a s r e c e n t l y h e a r d o r a l argument on t h e - i s s u e of whether a Veterans A d m i n i s t r a t i o n r e g u l a t i o n t h a t d e f i n e s a l c o h o l i s m a s " w i l l f u l misconduct" v i o l a t e s s e c t i o n 504. It c o u l d be argued t h a t t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s c a s e c o u l d have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e s e c t i o n 504 coverage of p e r s o n s with c o n t a g i o u s d i s e a s e s o r i n f e c t i o n s i f S. 557 were signed i n t o law. v. SUMMARY S. 557 a s i t passed t h e House and S e n a t e c o n t a i n e d an amendment t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n a l s e c t i o n o f t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act d i s c u s s i n g t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f s e c t i o n 504 a s i t r e l a t e s t o t h e employment o f p e r s o n s w i t h c o n t a g i o u s diseases or infections. 611 621 - See s u p r a , See s u p r a , T h i s amendment would most l i k e l y b e i n t e r p r e t e d as c o d i f y i n g t h e e x i s t i n g s t a n d a r d s a p p l i c a b l e t o s e c t i o n 504. However, t h e r e i s some ambiguity c o n c e r n i n g whether t h e amendment would i n d i c a t e t h a t p e r s o n s who a r e o n l y c o n t a g i o u s o r i n f e c t i o u s b u t m a n i f e s t no p h y s i c a l symptoms o f t h e i r d i s e a s e a r e covered by t h e s e s e c t i o n 504 s t a n d a r d s . There i s s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i v e language i n t h e House d e b a t e s s u p p o r t i n g t h e argument t h a t such p e r s o n s m u l d be covered but t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t p i e c e of l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y -- t h e c o l l o q u y between t h e two co-sponsors -- s i l e n t on t h i s p o i n t a l t h o u g h i t d o e s n o t a p p a r e n t l y c o n t r a d i c t t h i s interpretation. is CRS-2 7 APPENDIX C M L RIGHTS RESTORATION ACT The Senate continued with consideration of the bill. m y e r r no. 1 5 9 6 it your understandhlg that t h h pmendment is deslmed to &dPZdre~an h u e comparable to the one f ~ by & Congress In 1978 dlth r e m d ta crPvmage of alcohol end drug atwers under section 504 of the Rehabllitstlon Act? (Purpose: To provide a clariflcatlon for otherwlse pulllfied hdivfduals with handlcap in the employment context) Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate considexztion. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. H m a ~ m x ~for 1 himself and Mr. HARXIN. proposes an amendment numbered 1396. At the end of the bill Insert the following: CLARLPICATION OF IRDIVIDOALS WITX H A R ) I C M S nr rra ~ L o C Omm x T (a) Section 7(8) of the RehabilitaScc. after tion Act of 1973 is amended by adsubparagraph (B)the following: "(0 for the purpose of sections 503 and 504. rs such sectlow relate to employment. such term does not include sn individual who has 8 c w e n t l y contagious disease or infection and who, by reaclon of such &ease or infection, would constitute a dLrect threat to the h e a t h or safety of other lndivlduals or who, by reason of the currently contagious dbease or infection. is unzble to perform the duties of the job.". . The PRESIDING O&CER. The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President. I understand under the UC agreement there was time set sside"fo7ine consideration of a Humphrey amendment. Am I correct? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Mr. RENNESY.As I understand the situation at the present time, that there has been an amendment which has just been read which is a H a r m Humphrey amendment, and I mould ask consent that it be In order for the Senate to consider that measure at this particular time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objtction, it is so ordered. The Senator from New Hampshire. Mr. KUhCF'HREX. Mr. Resident, I thmk the Senator from Iowa and the floor managers and others, the staff Invclved, for working diligently to come b compromise language and like?b%eI thank my colleagues not infor thek patience, President, I would like to address several questions to the Senator frcin Iowa, relative to his understandinn of tNs amendment. Is the Senator p~epared?Do I have the attention of the Senator from Iowa? Mr.-HARgIN. If the Senator would yleld, ym. Senator. that ts nay understanding. Mr.EiUMPHREY. I thank the Senag tor for that reswme. I c Q ~ k hfurther, ls it the Geaarbr's understanding that this aendment, does notNng to change the current lhwa regardbg reasonable ~econunodotiolnas it applies ts individuals with hmdic~sgswho m o t perform the duties of the fob? Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator would yield, there seems t.B be r bit of a difference here. On my copy of the cornpromise, which again I. would Just compliment the Senator from New Harnpshlre and his staff for worklng on so diligently to reach rr eomprsmlse In this, the Panguarre t h s t I have here basically has a question mark after the word "handicaps." maat lii in the third sentence. "to individuals with hmdicaps." That Ls why I did not under:t.and the last little cbuse that W M added and I would %naveto have some time to think about that. I am sorry. Mr. BUMPEREY. Somehow we got two different copies here. I: would be happy to end my question with the question mark after the word "haadiaps." - Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that. I am not c e r b h that I know what r x sctly that does, but. i f t$,e- ~ e m t i ) r wotfia, r would appreciate it and I would respond, then, to the Senator's question by saying that: Yes. hdeed. that is my underatanding. Mr. HVhfPHBEY. FFnl%llly,is it the Senator's understanding, as we stated in 1978 with respect ta alcohol and dmg abusers, that the two-step process In section 504 applies in the situation under which it was first bekrmined that a g t m n was handicapped and then it is determined that a person is othemke qualified? Mr. EARKIN. Pea. I do understand-yes, that is my undemtmdho. W. EWhWHREY. Mr. President, the form of agreement is that, at least on the part sf the Senabr from Iowa and the Senator from New WampshLre, there would be no further debate or discussion s t this point. W n h s other Senators rvish to do m, 1 t ready to dfspose of it. A vslee vote k acceptable.