Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Disability Case
nytimes.com
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:48 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme
Court justices, in a case testing
the reach of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
questioned Wednesday whether an employer can exclude
someone from a job that might jeopardize his health --
even if he wants to work.
Mario Echazabal should be able to decide for himself
whether to take the risk of working in an oil refinery,
where chemicals might aggravate his liver ailment, his
lawyer argued to the court.
Instead, Echazabal's bosses at a Chevron plant in El
Segundo, Calif., made that decision for him, lawyer
Samuel Bagenstos said.
The limits of the 1990 ADA are slowly being thrashed out
in courts nationwide. The Supreme Court has decided nine
cases so far, with decisions in the Echazabal case and one
other workplace dispute yet to come this term.
The court has not been friendly to lawsuits asserting
worker rights under the ADA. In five cases involving the
workplace, the court has ruled against the worker each
time. The most recent decision came last month, when the
court made it more difficult for employees to demand
special treatment if they suffer partial disabilities such as
carpal tunnel syndrome.
By contrast, the court has ruled in favor of the disabled
person in the other four cases, which concerned
accommodations that everyone from dentists to the PGA
Tour must make to include people with disabilities.
``They are not sympathetic to the ADA in the workplace,''
Georgetown University law professor Michael Gottesman
said. ``They think people are asking for special treatment
because they have disabilities.''
Gottesman said he is not optimistic that the Echazabal
case will be any different.
Indeed, the justices seemed troubled by the idea that a
company's hands would be tied if a worker insisted on
doing a job that might lead to serious illness or death.
``We want employers to care about their employees,'' an
exasperated Justice Anthony M. Kennedy told Echazabal's
lawyer. ``You want the court to take a position that's
completely barbarous.''
Echazabal's condition did not prevent him from doing just
about every maintenance job at the refinery for more than
20 years. He worked for contractors at the plant, not for
Chevron itself.
He twice applied for a regular job with Chevron, which
would offer better benefits and job security. He twice was
hired with the condition that he take a company physical.
He was rejected the second time when a test showed he
suffered from chronic, active hepatitis C, a progressive
condition that can lead to cirrhosis, liver failure and
death.
Chevron asked the maintenance contractor to fire or
reassign Echazabal in 1996. He was fired and now drives
a school bus part-time.
``I feel like it's nothing wrong with me,'' Echazabal said
after attending Wednesday's oral argument. ``I'm still
feeling good.''
His lawyers say he has no symptoms, and remains ready
and able to work at the refinery.
``I like my old job. I know the job,'' Echazabal said.
Echazabal risked further liver damage the longer he
worked around the chemicals and toxins at the plant, and
his medical condition puts him outside the protection of
the ADA, Chevron's lawyer argued.
``There are five physicians who said this individual is at
imminent risk,'' lawyer Stephen Shapiro argued for the
company.
Employers must have the flexibility to deny a job to a
worker who would be a danger to himself on the job, the
company and a long list of businesses groups argue. The
ADA already says that a worker can be excluded if he or
she would be a threat to others.
Chevron appealed to the Supreme Court after the San
Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
that the health risk was not enough to disqualify
Echazabal. The Bush administration is backing the
company.
The case is Chevron v. Echazabal, 00-1406.
^---- On the Net:
Supreme Court: supremecourtus.gov |
