To: Campus Community
From: EEO Office
Date: October 14, 2002
Subject: U.S. Supreme Court Delivers Message of Safety and the ADA

Most would agree that the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) should not require that employers hire candidates that, by virtue of their disability, pose a safety threat to others. However, the question posed to the U. S. Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal was if a candidate for employment has a disability, and the safety concern extends to the candidate only, can the employer refuse to hire the candidate under the ADA?

Mario Echazabal began working in 1972 for independent contractors at an oil refinery owned by Chevron U.S.A. He applied for a job with Chevron, and was hired, contingent on his ability to pass Chevron's mandatory physical examination. The examination showed that Echazabal had liver damage caused by Hepatitis C. Chevron's doctors warned that his condition would worsen by exposure to toxic materials if he continued to work at the refinery.

Chevron withdrew its offer of employment, and in addition, Chevron asked the contractor that employed Ecshazabal either to re-assign him to a job without exposure to toxic chemicals or remove him from the refinery altogether. The contractor laid Echazabal off. Echazabal sued Chevron alleging violations of the ADA because they refused to hire him because of his disability. The district court found for Chevron and upheld the dismissal.

However, the 9th Circuit Appellate Court overturned the district court. The 9th Circuit stated that the text of the ADA explicitly recognized an employer's right to adopt employment qualification barring any individual whose disability would place others at risk, while the statute contained no language about threats to the disabled employee him/herself. This ruling was in direct contrast to rulings in the 11th and 7th Circuits.

In 2002, The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the case. The U. S. Supreme Court decided the matter by stating that there was no evidence that suggests that Congress "made a deliberate choice to omit the disabled employee when establishing safety concerns under the ADA." Therefore, Congress found for Chevron.

At the University of Redlands, guidelines formulated by the ADA, as well as other employment laws, are strictly enforced and followed. The interpretation of law in the area of EEO seems to be constantly under review. The U. S. Supreme Court appears to have made a clear statement regarding safety as it applies to the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation.