Chevron USA Inc. v. Echazabal

On June 10, the U.S. Supreme Court in Chevron USA Inc. v. Echazabal confirmed that employers can refuse to hire an applicant or can fire an employee who is disabled if the disability causes a direct threat to the employee’s own health in performing the job. The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) previously allowed employers to refuse to hire an applicant or to fire an employee if the disability presented a direct threat to others. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) promulgated a regulation extending this “direct threat” concept to a threat to the health of the individual as well. In 2000, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, held to the contrary. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision in support of the EEOC and employers.

Mario Echazabal, the plaintiff in the case, suffered from Hepatitis C. He applied to work in Chevron’s oil refinery. Chevron’s doctors, after testing Echazabal, determined that his condition would be aggravated by continued exposure to the toxins at the refinery. Chevron refused to hire Echazabal based on this determination; Echazabal sued, claiming Chevron had discriminated against him in violation of the ADA.

In finding for Chevron, the Supreme Court noted that Congress included the harm-to-others provision not as exclusionary language, but as just one example of legitimate qualifications that are “job related and consistent with business necessity.” The court also recognized that by hiring an applicant whose disability poses a direct threat to his own health in the performance of his duties, an employer may well violate the OSHA statutes which require an employer to ensure the safety of each and every worker.

Employers must exercise caution in relying on the EEOC “threat to self” concept, however. An employer must base its determination on specific, objective medical evidence and an assessment of the individual’s ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job. This assessment must consider, among other things, the imminence of the risk and the severity of the potential harm. The ADA still requires an employer to explore accommodation options, and to provide reasonable accommodation when possible. Only where an accommodation is not possible, such as in Chevron’s case, can the employer rely on the EEOC regulation.