*1 1118 Wimberly and Industrial Rela v. Labor
No. 85-129. Sup. Mo. Certio Ct. et al. of Missouri tions Commission rari granted. Rumery. C. A. et al. v. of Newton
No. 85-1449. Town granted. Certiorari 1st Cir. Florida, County, Board Nassau
No. 85-1277. School of of for respondent A. 11th Motion et al. v. Arline. C. Cir. granted Certiorari pauperis granted. to in proceed leave forma addition, In the by petition. 1 the Question presented limited to the following question: requested argue are to brief and parties dis- contagious, infectious one who is afflicted with the “Whether qualified’ ‘otherwise precluded being is from ease of tuberculosis teacher, meaning within the of elementary-school of job for the § 794?” 1973, 29 S. C. § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of U. Stevens, dissenting. Justice for proceed-
The of remanded this case further Appeals Court as follows: ings, opinion and concluded its case, resolving “In this court made no the findings the district numerous whether the risks entailed in disputes factual as to retaining elementary position precluded Arline in her school qualifications her from the for the having necessary physical if job, whether the same would be true she were transferred teaching individuals, a less or whether position susceptible to in her accommodating place the costs involved would undue system. Rather, on it simply the school concluded burdens any was from exempt duty the school board whatever to that and involved in accommodating the actual costs risks weigh ‘duty to the it overriding public Arline because of an serves.’ duty a by 504 its existence establishes that such Section an from for entity liability making cannot be used to shield ‘arbitrarily handi- deprive genuinely qualified decisions which to in a capped persons opportunity participate of the covered Davis, 442 program.’ Community College [v. Southeastern
1119 (1979)]. 397, 412 U. S. We therefore remand this case for findings further as to whether the risks of infection precluded *2 Mrs. Arline from being ‘otherwise qualified’ for her job and if so whether it was possible to make some reasonable accommo- in dation for her that teaching position, in another position teaching susceptible individuals, less inor some other kind of position (CA11 in the system.” 759, school 772 F. 2d 765 1985) (footnotes omitted).
In it my opinion, inappropriate is for this Court to direct the to parties present argument on the qualified” “otherwise issue before the District opportunity Court has an to make the findings by ordered the Court of Appeals. especially It is inappropriate because petitioner did not seek review on that issue. Accord- I ingly, respectfully dissent.
No. 85-6461. Martin Sup. Ct. Ohio. Motion of Ohio. v. Public Ohio Defender Commission for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. petitioner Motion of for leave to proceed in pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Ques- forma tion presented by IV the petition. No. 85-834. Nixon, Administrator of the Estate of Secretary Bowen,
Nixon v. of Health and Human Serv ices. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 85-886. Bruno v. Connecticut. Sup. Ct. Conn. Cer tiorari denied.
No. 85-917. Hollins et al. v. Powell et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 85-1010. Paschall et C. A. v. United States. al.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 85-1065. Bartimo v. Horsemen’s Benevolent Protective & C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. As sn. et al. No. 85-1176. Cohen v. Commissioner of Internal Reve A. 10th C. Cir. Certiorari denied. nue.