Blind social worker wins wrongful termination case.

A North Carolina appeals court has ruled that a blind social worker who refused provide home-skills training to a blind AIDS client was not insubordinate an should not have been fired. (Mendenhall v. North Carolina Department of Human man Resources, No. 9410SC176 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 1995).

Thelma Lou Mendenhall was a social worker with the Division of Services the Blind (DSB) in Guilford County until her firing in 1989. DSB is a division of the North Carolina Department of Human Resources.

Mendenhall was responsible for providing independent living services to DSB clients. She taught clients housekeeping, cooking, grooming, and personal hygiene. Her blindness required her to instruct by touch, according to her attorney, Marty Geer of Raleigh, North Carolina.

The AIDS client had requested assistance in food preparation skills, shaving, cleaning his teeth, cutting his nails, using eating utensils, washing dishes, and reading and writing in braille. "She was uncomfortable with the assignment, for obvious reasons," said Geer.

Mendenhall wrote to the DSB personnel manager and asked for a copy of DSB's AIDS policy, according to Geer. "She wanted to educate herself further. But they never responded," Geer said.

Frustrated by DSB's inaction, Mendenhall traveled by bus to a regional library to educate herself about the disease. She then took her concerns to her supervisor, who instructed her to provide services to the client but to avoid any physical contact. (Blind Social Worker Wins Back Job After Refusing to Work with AIDS Client, Occupational Safety Health Rep. (BNA), Aug. 9,1995, at 396.

Mendenhall agreed to do this as long as she received assurance from DSB that a sighted employee would perform the hands-on part of the training, but DSB refused.

Mendenhall next contacted the North Carolina labor department. "That agency reassured her that she could not be fired for refusing to service an AIDS client if DSB did not provide her with AIDS prevention training," Geer said.

Mendenhall was given latex gloves, a mask, and a surgical gown, but was not trained to use them.

Mendenhall filed a grievance against DSB. It was denied, and she was fired. She then filed an administrative complaint with the state Office of Administrative Hearings, alleging that she was fired without cause and in violation of a North Carolina statute prohibiting discrimination against handicapped people.

An administrative law judge found that DSB failed to reasonably accommodate Mendenhall's disability and that she had not been insubordinate. He recommended she be given back her job.

In 1993, however, the state personnel commission upheld her dismissal. A state trial court reversed that decision. The appeals court affirmed the lower court and remanded the case.

"My client now has her job back," said Geer, "but the state still fails to fully understand what reasonable accommodation is. After they reinstated her, they gave her an office not reachable by public transportation, although she used to be able to commute to work that way."

Geer added that the insensitivity of the state is ironic, given the circumstances of the case. "Here you have an agency so worried about not discriminating against an AIDS patient that it fails to accommodate a blind woman," she said.

Wayne Spivey, who chairs ATLA's AIDS Litigation Group, agreed. "The case demonstrates the competing interests of those who have been infected with AIDS and those whose jobs require intimate physical contact with such people," he said.

Deputy Attorney General John Corne declined to comment on the case.