Disability in the News

Supreme Court Hears Chevron USA, Inc. v Mario Echazabal

On February 27, 2002, the Supreme Court of the United States heard Chevron, USA vs. Echazabal which asks if the Americans with Disabilities Act (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.

Mario Echazabal had worked for the sub-contractor in Chevron's El Segundo, California's oil refinery for approximately 20 years. In 1992, when Echazabal applied to work directly for Chevron in their coker unit, a position was offered to him but it was withdrawn when Echazabal's pre-employment tests showed elevated liver enzymes though he had worked with his condition for years without incident. After learning of the enzyme test results, Echazabal consulted several doctors and was diagnosed with asymptomatic, chronic active Hepatitis C, a viral infection of the liver. However, he continued to work throughout the refinery, including in the coker unit, as an employee of Chevron's maintenance contractor.

In 1995, Echazabal applied again for a position with Chevron directly, again in the coker unit. He was offered the position conditional upon a physical examination. The examining physician concluded that further exposure to hepatotoxic chemicals and solvents like those used in the coker unit would seriously endanger his health. Chevron's medical director agreed that Echazabal could not work in the coker unit without risk to his own health. Chevron refused to hire him and instructed its maintenance contractor to ensure that he was not exposed to solvents and chemicals. As a result, he was terminated. Echazabal filed his case with the state court alleging, among other things, that Chevron and its maintenance contractor had discriminated against him on the basis of a disability, in violation of the ADA.

Title I of the ADA prohibits an employer from discrimination against a "qualified individual with disabilities" who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position." The ADA defines discrimination as including "using qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities, unless the standard or other selection criteria as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job related."

The case was brought to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. District Court. The judgment was in favor of Chevron and that its refusal to hire Echazabal was lawful because, as a result of his liver condition, working with the refinery would have posed a direct threat to his health. On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision and said that Chevron's threat to self-defense could be applied when the worker in question might cause harm to others. The Court explained in this case there is no evidence "that the risk allegedly posed to his own health renders him unable to perform the job duties. Rather, the evidence shows that he had successfully performed work in the coker unit for years."

Assistant Professor Samuel Bagenstos of Harvard Law School, attorney for Echazabal, said, "Historically, one of the ways people with disabilities have lost out on job opportunities has been through a kind of misguided paternalism." He added, "Because the employer said, 'this won't be safe for you.'" According to him, the ADA leaves that decision to the individual.

A decision from the Supreme Court is not expected until July.

Supreme Court Decides Disability Case
On January 8, 2002, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a unanimous decision in the Toyota v. Williams case, ruling in favor of Toyota. Elma Williams, a former employee of Toyota Motor Manufacturing in Kentucky, claimed that her carpal tunnel condition qualified as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court ruled in favor of Toyota because it felt that her carpal tunnel did not limit one or more of her major life activities as required under the ADA.

While working on Toyota's engine fabrication assembly line, Ms. Williams developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and bilateral tendonitis. Due to work restrictions placed by her personal physician, Ms. Williams was moved to Quality Control Inspection Operations (QCIO). Initially her work consisted of two tasks which she was able to perform. Over time, new tasks were added to her job description that required her to hold her arms up at shoulder level for several hours at a time. After a short time, Ms. Williams began to develop pain in her neck and shoulders.

After consulting with the in-house medical services, Ms. Williams asked to have her job description returned to the original two tasks which she was able to perform. According to Ms. Williams, Toyota denied this request. On December 6, 1996, Ms. Williams visited her physician and was placed under a no-work-of-any-kind restriction. On January 27, 1997, Ms. Williams was terminated by Toyota for her poor attendance record.

Ms. Williams filed suit against Toyota for violating the ADA by refusing to accommodate her disability. She claimed she was disabled under the ADA because her physical limitations substantially limited her in manual tasks, housework, gardening, playing with her children, and lifting. Ms. Williams felt these tasks constituted major life activities under the ADA.

The Supreme Court found that it is not enough for Ms. Williams to show that she cannot perform the manual tasks that her job requires. Instead, she must show that her condition prevents or severely restricts her ability to do manual activities that are important to most people's daily lives. The Court also felt that major life activities include basic abilities such as walking, seeing and hearing. Additionally, by her own statements, Ms. Williams is able to perform two manual tasks of her original job in QCIO.

The Court also stated that "an individualized assessment of the effect of an impairment is particularly necessary when the impairment is one whose symptoms vary widely from one person to another. Carpal tunnel syndrome is just such a condition." The Court cited various studies of conflicting report on the treatment and severity of carpal tunnel cases, concluding that, "an individual's carpal tunnel syndrome diagnosis, on its own, does not indicate whether the individual has a disability within the meaning of the ADA."

To read the Court's decision for yourself, visit Toyota v. Williams

You can track the issues that mean the most to you by logging on to federal government web sites. Here are a few addresses:

US Dept. of Health & Human Services www.dhhs.gov
National Institutes of Health www.nih.gov
US Office of Special Education Programs www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP
National Institute on Disability & Rehabilitation Resources (NIDRR) www.ed.gov/offices//OSERS/NIDRR

President/Vice Pres. www.whitehouse.gov
Senate Page www.senate.gov
House Page www.house.gov
US Courts www.uscourts.gov