In an important victory for the civil rights of health care workers, the federal court in Eugene, in May, decided that an Oregon ski patroller, who was fired for refusing an HIV test, must be rehired. This ruling will strengthen the legal protections for health care workers and others whose employers overreact to remote risks of HIV infection.

"This is a victory for science over fear," said Matt Coles, Director of the ACLU AIDS Project. "The court found that there was no real risk of transmission from emergency health workers ö and that in the absence of real risk, there could be no discrimination."

The Court ruled that an Oregon ski resort violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by removing the patroller from its slopes when he refused to take an HIV test once his employer learned that his wife has AIDS.

The ACLU of Oregon joined with the ACLU AIDS Project to represent the ski patroller, who was identified as "John Doe." Based on extensive medical evidence the ACLU presented at trial, Judge Michael Hogan found that workers who are the first to respond to the scene of a medical emergency pose no significant risk of infecting others with HIV.

"At best, [the ski resort] has proved only a remote risk to others," Hogan wrote. "This does not demonstrate the significant risk required" under the ADA.

The decision will be one of the strongest tools yet in protecting a range of health care workers who face discrimination from employers who fear that any risk of transmission ö however small ö forces them to remove employees from their medical duties.

The ski resort has decided not to appeal the decision.

ACLU of Oregon cooperating attorneys Suzanne Chanti and Martha Walters of Walters, Romm & Chanti in Eugene and Jennifer Middleton, staff attorney with the ACLU AIDS Project represented John Doe at trial. Cooperating attorney Kathleen Wilde represented Mr. Doe in a successful discrimination complaint to the EEOC.

The City of Cascade Locks has created a drug free zone that encompasses the entire city limits. This summer the Cascade Locks City Council adopted a drug free zone that allows law enforcement officers to issue a 90 day exclusion from the public streets, sidewalks and other public ways within the zone to a person that is arrested on a drug-related offense within the zone.

Cascade Locks modeled its ordinance after the city of Portlandâs drug free and prostitution free zones. The ACLU of Oregon is involved in two separate challenges to Portlandâs exclusion ordinance. We intend to bring a legal challenge to Cascade Locksâ ordinance as soon as possible.

Officials in Eugene and Springfield would like to adopt similar ordinances in their respective cities. The ACLU has done intensive lobbying to discourage such actions.

The ACLU of Oregon opposes these types of exclusion ordinances for many reasons. The primary reason is that these exclusion orders are extra-judicial. The exclusion orders are issued by police, not the courts and this is an end-run around our criminal justice process.

It is not unusual for individuals, upon conviction, to have the courts place limits on their travel as a condition of release, probation or parole. However, ACLU believes it is constitutionally impermissible to give police officers the power to banish someone from an area or an entire city based upon an arrest. Our republican form of government includes separate branches of government, with each having limited powers and checks on the power of the other branches. Maintaining the checks and balances of power within our governments is critical to preserving our civil liberties.

Another constitutional issue that is triggered by exclusion orders is the protection of double jeopardy. The ACLU and others argue that an exclusion order is a form of punishment. Therefore, it would constitute double jeopardy to convict and punish a person for the underlying drug offense after issuing a ninety-day exclusion order for the same offense. We also believe that the freedom of movement and association and the right to due process under the law are harmed by the exclusion ordinances.

The Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled that exclusion under the Portland ordinance is remedial in nature, not punishment. Therefore, double jeopardy is not an issue. The Oregon Supreme Court has accepted review of a case to decide this issue. Cooperating Attorney Chin See Ming of Perkins Coie LLP filed an amicus brief on behalf of the ACLU of Oregon and we are awaiting a decision from the court.

Our second challenge to the Portland ordinance is before the Oregon Court of Appeals. Thomas Balmer of Ater Wynne LLP has been our cooperating attorney in that case.

In July an important challenge to sex discrimination was filed in federal court in Oregon. National ACLU Womenâs Rights Project joined Legal Services of Oregon, the Oregon Law Center and NOWâs LDEF in a federal sex discrimination lawsuit challenging a property management companyâs "zero tolerance" policy that resulted in victims of domestic violence being evicted from their homes.

Tiffani Alvera, 24, from Seaside, was served with a 24-hour apartment eviction notice after she informed the buildingâs management that she had taken out a temporary restraining order against her husband, who had attacked her in their apartment.

There is a growing trend, in many areas of society, to expand the use and scope of zero tolerance policies. We know from experience in other areas, such as schools, that zero tolerance polices often lead to illogical and unjust outcomes.

Expanding the use of zero tolerance policies to force women who are victims of domestic violence out of their homes is causing damage, beyond the intended consequences, by punishing innocent victims and discriminating against women.

If successful in this lawsuit, not only will Ms. Alvera receive justice, but hopefully, thousands of other women and children will be spared the trauma of losing their homes at a time when they most need security and stability.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) also has filed suit against the property management company. In one of the first decisions of its kind, HUD has determined that this treatment of domestic violence victims disproportionately impacts women and therefore constitutes illegal sex discrimination. Lenora Lapidus is director of the ACLUâs Womenâs Rights Project and the ACLUâs lead attorney on this case. The trial date has yet to be set in the federal court in Portland.

On behalf of the Multnomah County Public Library, several Oregon library patrons and others, National ACLU is challenging the Childrenâs Internet Protection Act (CHIPA). Passed by Congress in December 2000, CHIPA forces libraries to censor constitutionally protected online speech. Libraries that participate in certain federal programs would be required to install "technology protection measures" on all of their internet access terminals or lose federal funding.

The challenge, which was filed in March 2001, will be heard in February 2002 by a three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia. Any appeal of the panelâs decision goes directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Congressâ own panel set up to study ways to protect children online rejected this idea because of the risk that "protected, harmless, or innocent speech would be accidentally or inappropriately blocked."

Makers of the blocking programs touted by the lawâs proponents do not claim to block only material that is "obscene, child pornography," or "harmful to minors," the kind of websites the law targets.

"This is the first time since the development of the local, free public library in the 19th century that the federal government has sought to require censorship in every single town and hamlet in America," says Chris Hansen, ACLU Senior Staff Attorney. "More than 100 years of local control of libraries and the strong tradition of allowing adults to decide for themselves what they want to read is being casually set aside."

For more information on this current challenge to libraries and related censorship efforts, go to Oregon and National ACLUâs websites.