Court Says Disabled Can Hold Risky Jobs
Disabled people who are otherwise qualified cannot be denied jobs merely because they pose a threat to their own health or safety in the workplace, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in a case brought by a former employee of Chevron Corp.’s El Segundo plant.
The decision triggered protests from the nation’s largest employers, who declared that they may now be forced to compromise safety in the workplace to comply with the decision.
Employers can require only that disabled employees not pose a significant risk to others in the workplace, according to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“Congress concluded that disabled persons should be afforded the opportunity to decide for themselves what risks to undertake” when it passed the American with Disabilities Act, or ADA, in 1990, wrote Judge Stephen Reinhardt for a unanimous three-judge panel. Lawmakers who approved the antidiscrimination act were “conscious of the history of paternalistic rules that have often excluded disabled individuals from the workplace,” he wrote.
The decision could cause the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to review its own guidelines, which state that employers may defend themselves against discrimination suits by showing that a jilted job candidate presented a threat to himself.
“This is an issue we’ve been looking at, and in light of this new decision we will give it more careful consideration,” said Peggy Mastrioanni, the EEOC’s assistant legal counsel.
Leaders of employer groups said they were alarmed by the ruling.
“What do you do if you know that some people will get hurt if they take the job, and they take the job anyway?” asked Ann Reesman, general counsel for the Washington-based Equal Employment Advisory Council, which represents more than 300 large companies. “Employers may end up balancing the risks between violating the ADA or having someone get hurt or killed.”
The appeals court decision reverses a lower court’s ruling dismissing a discrimination suit brought by Mario Echazabal, a 54-year-old mechanic and plant helper at Chevron’s oil refinery in El Segundo.
Chevron rejected Echazabal’s two job applications when it discovered that he was diagnosed with a chronic form of hepatitis. The oil giant also instructed Echazabal’s employer, a contractor, to remove him from the refinery, saying his exposure to solvents and chemicals might damage his liver and exacerbate his disease. Echazabal sued after he lost his refinery job.
Last year, U.S. District Judge Lourdes G. Baird dismissed all of Echazabal’s claims. Baird agreed with Chevron’s lawyers that the company acted properly because Echazabal would endanger his own health if he worked at the refinery.
The company’s attorneys cited guidelines by the EEOC, which states that employers may assert a “direct-threat” defense with respect to individuals who pose a threat to their own health or safety.
But Reinhardt and his colleagues rejected that argument, reinstating the lawsuit. “Not posing a risk to one’s own health or safety cannot in itself constitute an essential job function,” Reinhardt wrote.
Chevron attorney Jon P. Kardassakis said that he was disappointed with the decision and that the company has not yet decided whether it will appeal.
Larry Minsky, an attorney for Echazabal, applauded the decision. “Employers groups are going to cry bloody murder, but this case is simply saying that if you allow individuals to be fully informed they have the right to make their own decisions,” he said.
Cliff Palefsky, a San Francisco employment attorney, said the decision “hearkens to the true purposes of the ADA to give people with disabilities some self-respect and opportunity to work.”
But Reesman, whose group filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, called the ruling “problematic” for employers in the 9th Circuit, which includes California and eight other Western states. “The decision is wrong and bad public policy,” she said, “because a person who can’t perform a job without being seriously injured isn’t qualified for the job.”
