In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 2002 WL 1270586, the United States Supreme Court considered whether an employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it refused to hire a disabled man because his performance of the job would endanger his own health.
Facts:
Echazabal worked for an independent contractor at an oil refinery owned by Chevron. Chevron offered to hire Echazabal as an employee if he passed the company’s physical exam. The exam, however, disclosed liver damage that would be aggravated by continued exposure to toxins in the refinery. Chevron refused to hire Echazabal and asked his employer, the independent contractor, to either reassign him to a job without exposure to the harmful chemicals or completely remove him from the refinery. The independent contractor laid off Echazabal. Echazabal sued, claiming that the actions of Chevron violated the ADA. Chevron’s defense was that an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulation permitted an employer to refuse employment if a worker’s disability on the job would pose a “direct threat” to his health.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court held, unanimously, that Chevron did not violate the ADA and that the EEOC regulation was a valid interpretation of the ADA. The ADA permits an employer to impose job qualifications that are “job-related and consistent with business necessity,” which may include the situation where a disabled worker’s disability would pose a threat to other employees. There is nothing, however, in the ADA’s language preventing the EEOC from making a regulation covering situations where a disabled worker’s disability would pose a threat to himself. The Court also observed that Chevron’s reasonable fear that hiring Echazabal would put it in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) was enough to show that the regulation was valid.
Conclusion:
When the case returns to the trial court, Chevron can prevail if it can show its reasons for having Echazabal removed from the refinery were medically valid, “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” The EEOC’s regulation requires a personalized inquiry into the harms the worker would face, based on reasonable medical judgment and objective evidence. The inquiry must be an “‘individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job,’ reached after considering, among other things, the imminence of the risk and the severity of the harm portended.”