Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 672

524US2

Unit: $U96

[09-15-00 14:39:49] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 624 (1998)

627

Syllabus

tive, scientiﬁc evidence available to him and his profession, not simply
on his good-faith belief that a signiﬁcant risk existed. See id., at 288;
id., at 288, n. 18, distinguished. For the most part, the First Circuit
followed the proper standard and conducted a thorough review of the
evidence. However, it might have mistakenly relied on the 1993 CDC
Dentistry Guidelines, which recommend certain universal precautions
to combat the risk of HIV transmission in the dental environment, but
do not actually assess the level of such risk, and on the 1991 American
Dental Association Policy on HIV, which is the work of a professional
organization, not a public health authority, and which does not reveal
the extent to which it was based on the Association’s assessment of
dentists’ ethical and professional duties, rather than scientiﬁc assess-
ments. Other evidence in the record might support afﬁrmance of the
trial court’s ruling, and there are reasons to doubt whether petitioner
advanced evidence sufﬁcient to raise a triable issue of fact on the sig-
niﬁcance of the risk, but this Court’s evaluation is constrained by the
fact that it has not had briefs and arguments directed to the entire
record. A remand will permit a full exploration of the issues through
the adversary process. Pp. 648–655.

107 F. 3d 934, afﬁrmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens,
Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., ﬁled a concur-
ring opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined, post, p. 655. Ginsburg, J., ﬁled
a concurring opinion, post, p. 656. Rehnquist, C. J., ﬁled an opinion con-
curring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Scalia
and Thomas, JJ., joined, and in Part II of which O(cid:146)Connor, J., joined, post,
p. 657. O(cid:146)Connor, J., ﬁled an opinion concurring in the judgment in part
and dissenting in part, post, p. 664.

John W. McCarthy argued the cause for petitioner. With

him on the briefs was Brent A. Singer.

Bennett H. Klein argued the cause for respondents. With
him on the brief for respondent Abbott was Wendy E. Par-
met. John E. Carnes ﬁled a brief for respondent Maine
Human Rights Commission.

Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for
the United States as amicus curiae urging afﬁrmance.
With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Act-