Chevron vs Echazabal Essay examples

2038 Words Feb 25th, 2013 9 Pages
BUSINESS LAW 9000

ARJUN MODI

RESEARCH PAPER

10th MAY, 2012

CASE: CHEVRON V. ECHAZABAL

CASE ISSUE: AN INTORDUCTION (CHEVRON V, ECHAZABAL)

Mario Echazabal, worked as an independent contractor at a Chevron oil refinery in California. He applied for a job at Chevron. The company extended an offer to him provided, he take pass the medical examination. However, Echazabal failed the examination because the results showed that his liver was damaged due to Hepatitis C. Chevron feared that continued exposure to the toxins at the plant, may worsen Mr. Echazabal's condition. Hence, it denied employment to Echazabal. Upon Chevron's request to reassign Mr. Echazabal in order to reduce
…show more content…
Justice David H. Souter delivered the opinion for the Court. The Court stated that

" the EEOC was certainly acting within the reasonable zone when it saw a difference between rejecting workplace paternalism and ignoring specific and documented risks to the employee himself, even if the employee would take his chances for the sake of getting a job" (Chevron USA., Inc. v. Echazabal. 122 S. Ct. 2045. 2002)

The Court remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The Supreme Court Verdict: The Court used the three strike approach in ruling in favor of Chevron USA.

1. Deference to the EEOC's Direct threat to self Defense regulation: The Court stated the EEOC defense, creates an affirmative defense for the employers who can use this as a criteria while hiring people. That is the employer can refuse to hire someone when he or she feels that the employee's disability poses a direct threat to others in the workplace. The Court stated that the harm to others provision was included by Congress as merely one of the qualification standards that may be job related. The Court stated that Congress gave the EEOC reasonable discretion in establishing permissible qualification standards. Hence it stated that even though the EEOC's direct threat defense does not expressly include the harm to oneself as a qualification standard, it would come under the purview of this defense, as it ultimately

Related Documents