of protecting handicapped individuals from deprivations based on prejudice, stereotypes, or unfounded fear, while giving appropriate weight to such legitimate concerns of grantees as avoiding exposing others to significant health and safety risks. [Id. at 287,107 S.Ct. at 1130-31, 94 L.Ed.2d at 320 (footnote omitted) ]. Arline holds that proof of a classroom teacher’s active tuberculosis is, by itself, insufficient justification for dismissing her. More is required than the fact that she is a member of a class of persons who are potentially dangerous. Particularized proof is needed that this teacher, even with reasonable accommodations for her disability, would be a source of contagion in her specific teaching job. Cf. Marbrunak, Inc. v. City of Stow, Ohio, 974 F.2d 43 (6th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Potomac Group Home Corp. v. Montgomery
holding that safety requirements imposed by ordinance only on group homes and which did not relate to the residents disabilities were illegally discriminatory holding that residents of a geograph ic area are not a distinct cognizable group and citing united states v test which made clear that a geographic area is not a distinct group for support holding petitioner could not deduct real estate taxes imposed on property he did not own because these taxes were not imposed on him holding that plaintiffs statistics did not shed any light on the legally relevant issue because they did not indicate the group of applicants who were interviewed or even the group of applicants found qualified or the group of all applicants holding that permit fees imposed by statute were not taxes