Summary of Chevron USA v. Echazabal
The U.S. Supreme Court's Review of Direct Threat Under the ADA
Barry C. Taylor Legal Advocacy Director, Equip for Equality, Inc.
The Facts of the Echazabal Case
For 24 years, Mario Echazabal worked at Chevron's oil refinery in the coker unit for various maintenance contractors. In 1995, he applied to work directly for Chevron at the same location. After deeming Echazabal qualified, Chevron extended an offer contingent on him passing a physical examination. The examination revealed that Echazabal had an abnormal liver enzyme test result, which was eventually diagnosed as asymptomatic chronic active hepatitis C. Although Echazabal's physicians did not believe it would be harmful for him to continue to work at the refinery, Chevron's physician concluded that Echazabal's liver could be damaged by the solvents and chemicals present in the coker unit. Accordingly, Chevron rescinded the offer on the basis that he would pose a direct threat to his own health and safety. Chevron also ordered the maintenance contractor to terminate Echazabal unless he could be placed in a position that eliminated his exposure to solvents/chemicals. As a result, Echazabal was no longer permitted to work at the Chevron refinery.
Background on Direct Threat and the ADA
The ADA states that an employer is not required to hire an individual with a disability who poses a "direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace." However, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency designated to enforce the employment provisions of the ADA, has issued regulations containing a more expansive definition of direct threat stating that an employer is not required to hire an individual with a disability who poses a direct threat to the health or safety to the individual or others in the workplace."
Court Rulings in the Echazabal Case
Echazabal filed suit under the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Chevron and Echazabal appealed the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Relying on the EEOC's regulation, Chevron argued that its decision not to hire Echazabal was warranted because he would pose a direct threat to his own health if he worked at the refinery. The 9th Circuit ruled that the EEOC's regulation is invalid because it conflicts with the statutory language of Title I of the ADA. The court ruled that the defense applies only to threats to "other individuals in the workplace," and thus excludes threats to all others, including the person with a disability himself. The court went on to hold that the interpretation of limiting the direct threat to others is consistent with the principles underlying the ADA, in particular the principle of eliminating paternalistic actions that discriminate against people with disabilities. The ADA's statutory findings specifically list "overprotective rules and policies" as one form of disability discrimination.
The U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear the Case
On October 29, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the 9th Circuit's decision. The question for the Supreme Court to decide, as it has been framed by the employer, is as follows: Whether the ADA permits an employer to refuse to hire an individual because his performance of the job will, as a result of his disability, pose a direct threat to his own health or safety. The Court will likely hear oral argument on the case in early 2002.
Potential Implications of the Case
- The Supreme Court will decide whether, under Title I of the ADA, an employer can deny employment to people with disabilities who pose only a direct threat to themselves and not to others in the workplace.
- The Supreme Court may also decide how direct threat will be interpreted in areas other than employment, such as students in educational settings (Title II) or customers accessing private businesses (Title III).
- The Supreme Court may provide more guidance on the deference it will give to the regulations of federal agencies (such as the EEOC and the Department of Justice) that are charged with enforcing the ADA.
- The Supreme Court may also provide more guidance on the deference it will give to legislative history (committee reports and hearings), which in this case supports the position that direct threat is limited to threat to others and not to oneself.
- The Supreme Court may provide guidance as to whether it will treat direct threat cases involving disability similarly to previous cases decided on gender discrimination. (In UAW v. Johnson Controls, the Supreme Court previously held that the threats of lead exposure to female employees' own reproductive health did not justify the employer's decision to exclude women from certain positions at a manufacturing plant.)
- The Supreme Court may discuss whether state tort law is preempted to the extent that it conflicts with federal anti-discrimination law. (Chevron argued that exposure to tort liability should permit employers to refuse to hire employees who pose a threat to their own safety.)
- The Supreme Court may also examine how the direct threat defense interplays with the requirement that individuals must be qualified and able to perform the essential functions of the job. Chevron argued that Echazabal was not qualified to perform the duties of his job because of the risk he posed to his own health. The 9th Circuit rejected that argument holding that performing the job duties without posing a threat to one's own health or safety was not an essential function of Echazabal's job.
Questions? Call Equip for Equality at (800) 537-2632 (Voice) or (800) 610-2779 (TTY)
