Anti-AIDS Bias Law for County Approved

Over the angry shouts of opponents demanding to be heard, a divided Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday passed a wide-ranging law banning discrimination against people with AIDS or those suspected of carrying the AIDS virus.

The ordinance gives legal recourse to sue if people suspect that they are being excluded on these grounds at work, school or in renting a home in unincorporated areas of the county.

“We hope that the ordinance will educate people and prevent the discrimination based upon fear and the phobias that exist (about AIDS),” said board Chairman Ed Edelman, who joined with fellow Supervisors Deane Dana and Kenneth Hahn in backing the measure.

Dana, who broke with fellow conservatives Mike Antonovich and Pete Schabarum in supporting the ordinance, had supplied the crucial third vote last month when the supervisors first approved the proposal. And Dana weathered some intense lobbying before casting his vote Tuesday, allowing it to pass on a 3-2 vote.

‘Message Is Out’

“The whole intent of it is not to hang people and have a lot of problems but to let people know we should not discriminate against AIDS (victims), and I think the message is out,” Dana said.

The ordinance, which was pushed by the county Commission on AIDS, will take effect in 30 days and allow victims of AIDS discrimination to sue for damages or seek a court injunction.

Specifically, the ordinance, which affects the unincorporated areas of the county, will:

- Prohibit landlords from refusing housing or evicting someone with AIDS or an AIDS-related condition. However, the law does not protect a tenant who shares the residential unit with the owner, lessor or member of the family.

- Bar schools from denying admission or imposing different conditions on students because they have AIDS.

- Prohibit businesses from refusing “goods, services, facilities, privileged, advantages and accommodations” on grounds of AIDS.

- Make it illegal for an employer or labor union to restrict the hiring, promotion or training of people with AIDS.

The ordinance is similar to anti-discrimination laws in Pasadena, Santa Monica, West Hollywood and the city of Los Angeles. But it stops short of providing for county enforcement. Instead, the ordinance opens the way for individuals to bring civil lawsuits in the event of discrimination for AIDS-related reasons. In addition, a person may turn to the already existing dispute resolution program administered by the county, where a finding, however, lacks the force of law.

“There are not a lot of teeth in (the new law),” said Chris Brownlie, who is afflicted with AIDS and is a member of the AIDS Hospice Foundation. “But it is a step in the right direction.”

But opponents of the measure, who disrupted the board meeting Tuesday with demands that they be allowed to speak about the measure, insisted that those infected with the AIDS virus should be treated differently.

Critics’ Allegation

Most medical experts agree that the human immunodeficiency virus linked to AIDS is not spread through casual contact. It is transmitted through the exchange of bodily fluids, such as blood in the sharing of hypodermic needles or semen during sex. But despite that consensus, critics of the county ordinance claim that its passage enhances the spread of AIDS.

“We now do not have the right to refuse to come into close, personal contact with AIDS. That’s against our constitutional rights to protect our health and our safety,” said Ezola Foster, chairman of the Black-Americans for Family Values, an archconservative organization.

In voting against the measure, Antonovich called the ordinance unnecessary, citing existing state and federal laws protecting those with AIDS. The supervisor added that the county already has the dispute resolution program that can resolve discrimination complaints without going to court and warned that the ordinance would merely “add to the judicial gridlock that currently has burdened our county courts.”