Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. echazabal, Mario (06/10/2002)

Questions presented: Should a person who is unable to carry out the essential functions of a job without incurring significant risks to his own health or life be considered an individual "qualified" for the job, for the purposes of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act?

BY NIKI VRSANSKY, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

Mario echazabal applied for a position at Chevron U.S.A. twice, once in 1992 and then again in 1995, and was turned down because the company believed the job could kill him.

"Opinions from our doctors and his initially agreed that the job would be a serious health threat to Mario," Stephen M. Shapiro, attorney for Chevron U.S.A., Inc., says.

echazabal continued to work for contractors at Chevrons oil refinery in Segundo, California, as he had since 1972.

echazabal has Hepatitis C, a liver disease that could worsen over time if the right precautions are not taken. The position he sought at Chevron was in the coker unit, which means he would be extracting petroleum products from crude oil.

In his first application in 1992, though Chevron declined to hire him, the company allowed him to continue to work at the refinery for the contractor. When he applied again in 1995 and was examined by doctors, Chevron not only declined to hire him, but wrote to the contractor asking that they "immediately remove Mr. echazabal from [the]refinery or place him in a position that eliminates his exposure to solvents/chemicals."

echazabal filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and filed suit in state court, alleging that Chevron had discriminated against him on the basis of a disability, in violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The claim was that echazabals disability should not have been used to keep him from employment that he could do.

"In his 24 years at the company, there has been no deterioration in Mr. echazabal's health," says Larry Minsky, echazabals attorney. "Chevron's doctors indicated that Mario shouldn't be hired because he had Hepatitis C, but Mario's doctor said he could go back to work."

Minsky maintains that the exposure levels on the job would be insufficient to create a problem.

"There is no threat for Mr. echazabal that wouldnt be a threat to anyone else," Minsky says.

Chevron's Shapiro disagrees. "He has Hepatitis C hes in a very serious and delicate state. And most employers feel obligated under federal law to protect employees."

Minsky is convinced that echazabal would not be a danger to himself or anyone else if he were given the position. He says it is not as though echazabal is a doctor who is infected with AIDS and conducts open heart surgery.

"The doctor poses a real threat to the patient if he accidentally cuts himself during the surgery," Minsky says. "But Mario's condition does not endanger anyone but Mario."

The analogy did not convince Chevron or the federal judge in California, who granted summary judgment for Chevron.

In contrast, a divided 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled for echazabal, holding that "the direct threat" defense available to employers under the ADA does not apply to employees who pose a direct threat only to their own health.

The majority looked first to the language of the statute, which states that an employer may impose as a qualification standard a requirement that an individual will not pose a "direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace."

Writing for the majority, Judge Stephen Reinhardt also consulted the legislative history of the act to resolve that it was intended specifically to keep employers from making "paternalistic" decisions on behalf of the disabled employee.

The majority also rejected Chevron's argument that allowing echazabal to work at the refinery would expose the company to tort liability if he were to become ill or die because of the very exposure Chevron anticipated. "Because Chevron has not arguedthat it faces any costs from tort liability, this question is not properly before us," Reinhardt wrote. "Nevertheless, we should note that ... the Supreme Court strongly suggested that state tort law would be preempted to the extent that it interfered with federal antidiscrimination law."

Judge Stephen Trott emphatically dissented. "Mr. echazabal simply is not otherwise qualified for the work he seeks. Why?" Trott asked. "Because the job most probably will endanger his life. I do not understand how we can claim he can perform the essential functions of the position he seeks when precisely because of his disability, those functions may kill him. To ignore this reality is bizarre."

Trott continued: Long ago we rejected the idea that workers toil at their own peril in the workplace. Paternalism here is just an abstract out-of-place label of no analytical help. Whether paternalism or maternalism, the concept is pernicious when it is allowed to dislodge longstanding laws mandating workplace safety. That battle was fought and lost long ago in our legislatures. In many jurisdictions, it is a crime knowingly to subject workers to life-endangering conditions."

The Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest group based in California that advocates for individual liberties and less government, urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

"I think the big issue here is that the ADA was intended to eradicate irrational disability discrimination," says Ann M. Hayes, an attorney for the foundation. "It started out with good intentions, but its really created problems that didnt exist before.

"The ADA has turned into a litigation machine, but its not doing a lot for people with disabilities," Hayes says. "These lawsuits fly in the face of sound public policy that has always protected employers maintaining a safe workplace. Our main interest is making sure the law doesnt work in a nonsensical manner.

"Part of the job qualification made [echazabal] susceptible to a health threat, so physically there was no job match here an employer is not going to put you in a situation where your well being is threatened," Hayes says. "Chevron is not being biased - this is a legitimate safety threat."

The Equal Employment Advisory Council (EEAC) also filed a "friend of the court" brief supporting Chevron before the Supreme Court. "The ADA was never meant to prevent employers from using safety standards," says Ann Reesman, attorney for the EEAC. "This is a really important case," Reesman says. "Safety standards should be just as legitimate as qualification standards, if not more so."

On Oct. 29, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case.

On June 10, 2002, the Court unanimously held that under the ADA, employers can deny a job to disabled workers who face serious risks to their own health or safety.