Chevron vs Echazabal
BUSINESS LAW 9000
ARJUN MODI
RESEARCH PAPER
10th MAY, 2012
CASE: CHEVRON V. ECHAZABAL
CASE ISSUE: AN INTORDUCTION (CHEVRON V, ECHAZABAL)
Mario Echazabal, worked as an independent contractor at a Chevron oil refinery in California. He applied for a job at Chevron. The company extended an offer to him provided, he take pass the medical examination. However, Echazabal failed the examination because the results showed that his liver was damaged due to Hepatitis C. Chevron feared that continued exposure to the toxins at the plant, may worsen Mr. Echazabal's condition. Hence, it denied employment to Echazabal. Upon Chevron's request to reassign Mr. Echazabal in order to reduce his exposure to harmful toxins, the contractor fired him.
After this, Echazabal filed suit against Chevron. He claimed that the company violated the Americans With Disabilities Act, (ADA) by refusing to hire him due to his liver condition. The ADA is a federal law established in 1991 that prohibits discrimination on the basis of a workers' disabilities. (http://www.ada.gov/). Chevron made a counter argument that under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) direct threat defense, an employer can refuse to offer employment to disabled candidates, if the job would pose a threat to the health of the disabled employee. The District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Chevron. It stated that Echazabal offered no material fact as to whether Chevron acted reasonably or not. However, Echazabal appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals. The Court stated that the obvious reading of the direct threat defense as not including threats to oneself is supported by the definitional section of Title I, which states that “the term ‘direct threat’ means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation''.
ARJUN MODI
RESEARCH PAPER
10th MAY, 2012
CASE: CHEVRON V. ECHAZABAL
CASE ISSUE: AN INTORDUCTION (CHEVRON V, ECHAZABAL)
Mario Echazabal, worked as an independent contractor at a Chevron oil refinery in California. He applied for a job at Chevron. The company extended an offer to him provided, he take pass the medical examination. However, Echazabal failed the examination because the results showed that his liver was damaged due to Hepatitis C. Chevron feared that continued exposure to the toxins at the plant, may worsen Mr. Echazabal's condition. Hence, it denied employment to Echazabal. Upon Chevron's request to reassign Mr. Echazabal in order to reduce his exposure to harmful toxins, the contractor fired him.
After this, Echazabal filed suit against Chevron. He claimed that the company violated the Americans With Disabilities Act, (ADA) by refusing to hire him due to his liver condition. The ADA is a federal law established in 1991 that prohibits discrimination on the basis of a workers' disabilities. (http://www.ada.gov/). Chevron made a counter argument that under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) direct threat defense, an employer can refuse to offer employment to disabled candidates, if the job would pose a threat to the health of the disabled employee. The District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Chevron. It stated that Echazabal offered no material fact as to whether Chevron acted reasonably or not. However, Echazabal appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals. The Court stated that the obvious reading of the direct threat defense as not including threats to oneself is supported by the definitional section of Title I, which states that “the term ‘direct threat’ means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation''.
Citations: 1. February 27th, 2003. Policy Brief Series—No. 9, Chevron v. Echazabal: The Americans with Disabilities Act 's "Direct Threat to Self" Defense. http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2003/February272003#Background. 2. United States Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=OSHACT&p_id=3355 3. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). http://www.ada.gov// 4. Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions. ADA—DEFENSES—DIRECT THREAT. http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/sdocuments.nsf/18d8322df5fb351c8825728200016dd0/9ad8ea2b47851e148825728a007d47c8?OpenDocument 5. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. ECHAZABAL v. CHEVRON USA INC. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1014148.html , http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ 6. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, David Yee. May 2004. Chevron V. Echazabal. http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/genderlaw/11/yee.pdf 7. Chevron USA, Inc. v. Echazabal. 122 S. Ct. 2045 (2002). http://www.supremecourt.gov/