Supreme Court to Rule on Risky Jobs for Disabled Workers
By Michelle Logsdon - October 29, 2001The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of a California man with chronic hepatitis who was denied a new position at Chevron Corp. because the job environment could have killed him.
Chevron officials say if employers are forced to hire disabled workers who are willing to risk their own personal safety then businesses could see a host of new liability cases.
Mario Echazabal worked for Chevron since 1972 in their oil refinery in El Segundo, California. He sued the company after they rejected his 1995 application to work as a plant helper. Chevron turned down Echazabal’s request because he suffers from hepatitis C and toxins in the air could have aggravated his condition. Echazabal’s doctor told him the chemicals could be deadly.
Echazabal claims Chevron discriminated against him under the terms of the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The federal law requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities and provides strict guidelines on discrimination.
Echazabal’s case was thrown out in 1997 by a federal judge but he appealed and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Echazabal. A majority ruling by the four-judge panel stated that employers couldn’t discriminate against an employee with a disability who chooses to put his own health and safety at risk.
According to ChevronTexaco’s website the company’s "global workforce is dedicated to the belief that all accidents are preventable and a zero-incidents goal is attainable." Chevron claims the ruling will force employers to stand back while workers are injured or even killed. Chevron’s lawyers wrote, "The absurd result in this case, one that will cost workers’ lives and force unwilling employers to be complicit in their injuries, is not what Congress had in mind when it enacted the ADA."
Chevron appealed the case to the Supreme Court and they took it on after the U.S. Justice Department denounced the appeals court ruling and urged that officials should take a closer look at the issue.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in this case in early 2002. A decision is expected by June.
| 
__May11th2017.gif)
