Echazabal V. Chevron Case Summary
Summarize the relevant facts of the case. The relevant facts of Echazabal v. Chevron USA are as follows. Mr. Echnazabal had been working at Chevron USA refinery since 1972 till 1996 until the events presented in the case unfolded. He was employed by independent maintenance contractors for the refinery and worked in the coker unit of the refinery. In 1992, when a job opening was posted by Chevron in the same coker unit as that of where Mr. Echnazabal worked, he applied for the position to be directly hired by Chevron. As a part of their hiring protocol, when Chevron conducted pre-employment physical tests, it was found that Mr. Echnazabal 's certain liver enzymes were higher. Based on the recommendations from the medical person in charge, if Mr. Echnazabal continued working in the coker unit,
…show more content…
exposure to solvents and chemicals in the unit would put him at higher risk for liver problems and thereby would affect his health further. Based on this finding they declined him a job offer. However, even after this incident Mr. Echnazabal continued to be employed by independent contractors and kept working in the same coker unit. In 1995, when Mr. Echnazabal reapplied for the position, he was again declined because of same reasons when he initially applied in 1992. However, this time Chevron contacted his employer, Irwin and asked to remove Mr. Echnazabal from his current unit or find him another position that would not endanger his health by eliminating the exposure risks to solvents and chemicals in the coker unit. Following this incident, Mr. Echazabal found it to be violation of Americans with Disability Act, where he had a disability (Hepatitis C) due to which he was denied of employment opportunity.
What are the central issues presented in the case that were decided by the court? One of the central issues presented in the case that were decided by the court was that it permits employers to impose a requirement that their employees shall not pose a significant risk to the health and safety of other individuals in the workplace (Halbert & Ingulli, 2009, p. 189). This can be interpreted that in this case since Mr. Echazabal health issues were not risk to other people, he cannot be denied a job based on his liver function tests. However, the court also feels that "it would be an undue hardship to require an employer to place an employee in a life- threatening situation (Halbert & Ingulli, 2009, p. 190)."
What laws were relied upon by the court in deciding the case? The court relied upon ADA 's direct threat defense law in deciding the case that permits employers to impose a requirement that their employees shall not pose a significant risk to the health and safety of other individuals in the workplace. Under this law, the threat should be to others and not to person himself (Americans with Disabilities Act, 2008). If the threat is to person himself, he or she should be given an opportunity to decide for himself or herself on what to do. Later in the case the Judge also refers to OSHA regulations and explains on how it provides less protection to employees in more danger compared to the employees in less danger.
What was the outcome of the case (Holding)? There were two out opposite ruling of this case. Initially, the district court ruled against Mr. Echazabal saying that Chevron could decline to offer an employment to Mr. Echazabal on the grounds that working in the coker unit would expose him to further health risks. However, when the case was brought to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court reversed the decision made my district court citing ADA 's law, which does not mention anything related to threat to oneself. Had there been a threat to others due to Mr. Echazabal 's condition it would have been in accordance to ADA 's law and there would have been different outcome.
Analysis – How did the majority of judges tie the facts, issues and laws presented in the case together to reach their holding in the case? The majority of judges reached their holding from the fact that by working in coker unit at Chevron refinery, Mr. Echazabal would expose himself to solvents and chemicals that would aggravate his chronic liver condition (Hepatitis C) and would put Mr. Echazabal in further life threatening danger. The judges tied in the facts from ADA laws on how the law permits employers to impose a requirement that their employees shall not pose a significant risk to the health and safety of other individuals in the workplace. They brought in the fact that employers are not required to hire individuals with disabilities, unless the individuals are otherwise qualified to handle the necessary functions of their job. In this case, since the job in coker unit will endanger the life of Mr. Echazabal, he is not otherwise qualified for the job. They also highlighted the fact that there are many laws and statues, which are designed to protect workers from harm and thus employers should not be forced to put their employees in the situations that would be life threatening to them.
What law or laws did the dissent rely upon in reaching their decision in the case? The law that the dissent rely upon in reaching their decision in the case was primarily ADA 's law, which states that employers can put a restriction on employees and cannot hire those individuals with disability for whom the disability would put other employees in danger. They also relied upon the fact that employers may not hire an individual with disability, unless the individuals are otherwise qualified to handle the necessary functions of their job. Since in this case, the exposure to solvent and chemicals would put Mr. Echazabal to life threatening risks and hinder him to perform job functions in future, he is not otherwise considered qualified for the job. The dissent also referred to state and federal regulations that would said that the employees can decided to work even after knowing the risks involved, as long as they do not put another employees in danger. The ADA was put in place to stop employers from discriminating individuals with disability and declining to offer job based on disability even though they can fully function for at the position for which they are hired.
Do you agree, based upon the laws presented, with the position taken by the majority or the dissent in this case? Why? This case is like a double edge sword. Providing employment to Mr. Echazabal might not be morally or ethically correct knowing the dangers involved, law does not support that argument. I would agree with the position taken by the majority or the dissent in this case. First of all, there is no law that prohibits the employers from hiring individuals that have disability, which would put the individuals at higher risk from the work. Moreover, there could be number of reasons on to why Mr. Echazabal would be keen to take the available position at the coker unit. I feel that individuals should be allowed to make their own decision on to how much they are ready to put themselves in danger for the job. As long as their disability is not putting someone else in harm 's way, they have and should be provided equal opportunity to work as long as they are qualified for the position. In this case, Mr. Echazabal had disability that would be harmful for himself and would not endanger any other individuals around him. Since the risk was contained to himself, he should have been allowed to decide for himself to work or not to work after being educated on the risks.
Why do you think Echazabal was willing to risk his health to work in the coker unit? Assuming he had a complete grasp of the risk involved, was it ethical to allow him to work? For this, re-examine the ethical toolkit from Chapter 1. Just based on the facts provided in the case, it would be hard to pinpoint any specific reasons on why Mr. Echazabal was willing to risk his health to work in the coker unit. However, some of the reasons that could possibly explain could be his need for income to pay his bills, or it could be due to the fact that since he had been working there for so long, he had no other sufficient skills to find a job in another industry or department. Since he had chronic disease, it is possible that he needed insurance to pay off the costs involved with his medical expense. It is possible that even though there was risk involved with the job, he thought it would be better to live a better financial life than to rely on government support for survival. Also not having sufficient income put his family members or his dependant at mercy of government support. Another possibility could be that he enjoyed his job in coker unit and had made some good friend that he would not like to leave. Based on Deontology view, which focuses on principle of respecting life, it would support Chevrons decision on not hiring Mr. Echazabal. Hiring him would mean, putting his life in danger even after knowing the facts. However, based on utilitarianism viewpoint, it focuses to do good for all. Based on that point, letting Mr. Echazabal work would benefit Chevron as well as Mr. Echazabal. Chevron would retain a well-experienced employee while Mr. Echazabal would benefit by continuing to receive income needed to pay his bills. Virtue ethics would support hiring Mr. Echazabal as it focuses on helping others to reach their best potential. By hiring Mr. Echazabal, Chevron would make sure that he is being offered an opportunity to exhibit his work talents and further his career as and when possible. Ethics of care would support deontology ethics, with the view to care for others. If Chevron allowed Mr. Echazabal to work, it would mean that they do not care about his health. All they care is to retain a skilled employee even though it means to put his life in danger. This ethical lens would support the decision made by Chevron that they cared for Mr. Echazabal 's health and thus even approached his contracted to find him another position in the refinery to decrease the effects of solvents and chemicals on his health.
From an ethical standpoint, how do you believe the case should have been decided? Why? I feel that ethically Chevron 's decision should have been supported and the case be decided in their favor. This is because knowingly endangering someone 's life is not a correct approach both ethically and morally. Yes, Mr. Echazabal would need to carry on his work in order to pay his bills and support his family, but then he could have been moved to a different department where he was not exposed to solvents and chemicals that would negatively affect his health further. As an alternate, Chevron could have agree to help Mr. Echazabal with his medical bills, if he would have agree to take a job in different department even though it would have meant taking a small pay cut.
In this case, we see both the company and the employee between a rock and a hard place. Echazabal must choose to either further endanger his health, or lose a coveted opportunity. At the same time Chevron is caught between liability under the ADA, and liability based upon unsafe working conditions. Suppose you were a top manager inside Chevron responsible for workplace safety. What could be done to prevent, or minimize, this type of scenario from developing in the future? As a top manager it would have been my responsibility to make sure that the hiring process is as fair as possible and at the same time it would be my responsibility to make sure that the work environment offered to the employees is safe and meets the standards set by state and federal regulations.
In this case, I would let Mr. Echazabal know of possible health effects from his current job position and would have allowed him to make a decision, in order to comply with ADA guidelines. However, to comply with safety regulations I would have requested Mr. Echazabal to sign a waiver against any legal or financial liabilities should he choose to continue working at the coker unit even after knowing the risks involved. Following above two steps would at least give the company to show that we followed the rules while decreasing the risks of future liabilities. To meet the safety regulations I would have also provide the equipments necessary to minimize the exposures the solvents and chemicals. In addition, another alternative would have been to give an option of moving to a different department so as he maintained his income and as a company Chevron continued his
employment.
References:
Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2015). Law and ethics in the business environment (8th ed.). pg. 189- 190. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Americans with Disabilities Act Questions and Answers. (2008, October 9). Retrieved February 27, 2015, from http://www.ada.gov/qandaeng.htm
exposure to solvents and chemicals in the unit would put him at higher risk for liver problems and thereby would affect his health further. Based on this finding they declined him a job offer. However, even after this incident Mr. Echnazabal continued to be employed by independent contractors and kept working in the same coker unit. In 1995, when Mr. Echnazabal reapplied for the position, he was again declined because of same reasons when he initially applied in 1992. However, this time Chevron contacted his employer, Irwin and asked to remove Mr. Echnazabal from his current unit or find him another position that would not endanger his health by eliminating the exposure risks to solvents and chemicals in the coker unit. Following this incident, Mr. Echazabal found it to be violation of Americans with Disability Act, where he had a disability (Hepatitis C) due to which he was denied of employment opportunity.
What are the central issues presented in the case that were decided by the court? One of the central issues presented in the case that were decided by the court was that it permits employers to impose a requirement that their employees shall not pose a significant risk to the health and safety of other individuals in the workplace (Halbert & Ingulli, 2009, p. 189). This can be interpreted that in this case since Mr. Echazabal health issues were not risk to other people, he cannot be denied a job based on his liver function tests. However, the court also feels that "it would be an undue hardship to require an employer to place an employee in a life- threatening situation (Halbert & Ingulli, 2009, p. 190)."
What laws were relied upon by the court in deciding the case? The court relied upon ADA 's direct threat defense law in deciding the case that permits employers to impose a requirement that their employees shall not pose a significant risk to the health and safety of other individuals in the workplace. Under this law, the threat should be to others and not to person himself (Americans with Disabilities Act, 2008). If the threat is to person himself, he or she should be given an opportunity to decide for himself or herself on what to do. Later in the case the Judge also refers to OSHA regulations and explains on how it provides less protection to employees in more danger compared to the employees in less danger.
What was the outcome of the case (Holding)? There were two out opposite ruling of this case. Initially, the district court ruled against Mr. Echazabal saying that Chevron could decline to offer an employment to Mr. Echazabal on the grounds that working in the coker unit would expose him to further health risks. However, when the case was brought to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court reversed the decision made my district court citing ADA 's law, which does not mention anything related to threat to oneself. Had there been a threat to others due to Mr. Echazabal 's condition it would have been in accordance to ADA 's law and there would have been different outcome.
Analysis – How did the majority of judges tie the facts, issues and laws presented in the case together to reach their holding in the case? The majority of judges reached their holding from the fact that by working in coker unit at Chevron refinery, Mr. Echazabal would expose himself to solvents and chemicals that would aggravate his chronic liver condition (Hepatitis C) and would put Mr. Echazabal in further life threatening danger. The judges tied in the facts from ADA laws on how the law permits employers to impose a requirement that their employees shall not pose a significant risk to the health and safety of other individuals in the workplace. They brought in the fact that employers are not required to hire individuals with disabilities, unless the individuals are otherwise qualified to handle the necessary functions of their job. In this case, since the job in coker unit will endanger the life of Mr. Echazabal, he is not otherwise qualified for the job. They also highlighted the fact that there are many laws and statues, which are designed to protect workers from harm and thus employers should not be forced to put their employees in the situations that would be life threatening to them.
What law or laws did the dissent rely upon in reaching their decision in the case? The law that the dissent rely upon in reaching their decision in the case was primarily ADA 's law, which states that employers can put a restriction on employees and cannot hire those individuals with disability for whom the disability would put other employees in danger. They also relied upon the fact that employers may not hire an individual with disability, unless the individuals are otherwise qualified to handle the necessary functions of their job. Since in this case, the exposure to solvent and chemicals would put Mr. Echazabal to life threatening risks and hinder him to perform job functions in future, he is not otherwise considered qualified for the job. The dissent also referred to state and federal regulations that would said that the employees can decided to work even after knowing the risks involved, as long as they do not put another employees in danger. The ADA was put in place to stop employers from discriminating individuals with disability and declining to offer job based on disability even though they can fully function for at the position for which they are hired.
Do you agree, based upon the laws presented, with the position taken by the majority or the dissent in this case? Why? This case is like a double edge sword. Providing employment to Mr. Echazabal might not be morally or ethically correct knowing the dangers involved, law does not support that argument. I would agree with the position taken by the majority or the dissent in this case. First of all, there is no law that prohibits the employers from hiring individuals that have disability, which would put the individuals at higher risk from the work. Moreover, there could be number of reasons on to why Mr. Echazabal would be keen to take the available position at the coker unit. I feel that individuals should be allowed to make their own decision on to how much they are ready to put themselves in danger for the job. As long as their disability is not putting someone else in harm 's way, they have and should be provided equal opportunity to work as long as they are qualified for the position. In this case, Mr. Echazabal had disability that would be harmful for himself and would not endanger any other individuals around him. Since the risk was contained to himself, he should have been allowed to decide for himself to work or not to work after being educated on the risks.
Why do you think Echazabal was willing to risk his health to work in the coker unit? Assuming he had a complete grasp of the risk involved, was it ethical to allow him to work? For this, re-examine the ethical toolkit from Chapter 1. Just based on the facts provided in the case, it would be hard to pinpoint any specific reasons on why Mr. Echazabal was willing to risk his health to work in the coker unit. However, some of the reasons that could possibly explain could be his need for income to pay his bills, or it could be due to the fact that since he had been working there for so long, he had no other sufficient skills to find a job in another industry or department. Since he had chronic disease, it is possible that he needed insurance to pay off the costs involved with his medical expense. It is possible that even though there was risk involved with the job, he thought it would be better to live a better financial life than to rely on government support for survival. Also not having sufficient income put his family members or his dependant at mercy of government support. Another possibility could be that he enjoyed his job in coker unit and had made some good friend that he would not like to leave. Based on Deontology view, which focuses on principle of respecting life, it would support Chevrons decision on not hiring Mr. Echazabal. Hiring him would mean, putting his life in danger even after knowing the facts. However, based on utilitarianism viewpoint, it focuses to do good for all. Based on that point, letting Mr. Echazabal work would benefit Chevron as well as Mr. Echazabal. Chevron would retain a well-experienced employee while Mr. Echazabal would benefit by continuing to receive income needed to pay his bills. Virtue ethics would support hiring Mr. Echazabal as it focuses on helping others to reach their best potential. By hiring Mr. Echazabal, Chevron would make sure that he is being offered an opportunity to exhibit his work talents and further his career as and when possible. Ethics of care would support deontology ethics, with the view to care for others. If Chevron allowed Mr. Echazabal to work, it would mean that they do not care about his health. All they care is to retain a skilled employee even though it means to put his life in danger. This ethical lens would support the decision made by Chevron that they cared for Mr. Echazabal 's health and thus even approached his contracted to find him another position in the refinery to decrease the effects of solvents and chemicals on his health.
From an ethical standpoint, how do you believe the case should have been decided? Why? I feel that ethically Chevron 's decision should have been supported and the case be decided in their favor. This is because knowingly endangering someone 's life is not a correct approach both ethically and morally. Yes, Mr. Echazabal would need to carry on his work in order to pay his bills and support his family, but then he could have been moved to a different department where he was not exposed to solvents and chemicals that would negatively affect his health further. As an alternate, Chevron could have agree to help Mr. Echazabal with his medical bills, if he would have agree to take a job in different department even though it would have meant taking a small pay cut.
In this case, we see both the company and the employee between a rock and a hard place. Echazabal must choose to either further endanger his health, or lose a coveted opportunity. At the same time Chevron is caught between liability under the ADA, and liability based upon unsafe working conditions. Suppose you were a top manager inside Chevron responsible for workplace safety. What could be done to prevent, or minimize, this type of scenario from developing in the future? As a top manager it would have been my responsibility to make sure that the hiring process is as fair as possible and at the same time it would be my responsibility to make sure that the work environment offered to the employees is safe and meets the standards set by state and federal regulations.
In this case, I would let Mr. Echazabal know of possible health effects from his current job position and would have allowed him to make a decision, in order to comply with ADA guidelines. However, to comply with safety regulations I would have requested Mr. Echazabal to sign a waiver against any legal or financial liabilities should he choose to continue working at the coker unit even after knowing the risks involved. Following above two steps would at least give the company to show that we followed the rules while decreasing the risks of future liabilities. To meet the safety regulations I would have also provide the equipments necessary to minimize the exposures the solvents and chemicals. In addition, another alternative would have been to give an option of moving to a different department so as he maintained his income and as a company Chevron continued his
employment.
References:
Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2015). Law and ethics in the business environment (8th ed.). pg. 189- 190. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Americans with Disabilities Act Questions and Answers. (2008, October 9). Retrieved February 27, 2015, from http://www.ada.gov/qandaeng.htm