1. Chevron v. Echazabel, 536 U.S. 73 (2002) LSJ 434/CHID 434 Winter 2007 Sherrie Brown

2. 2 FACTS Echazabal has Hepatitis C Chevron refused to hire him because exposure to toxins at their work place would allegedly aggravate his health condition. Echazabal sues, arguing that ADA does not permit the employer to consider the potential of harm to the employee with a disability. EEOC regulation permits this consideration but he argues EEOC has exceeded its scope of permissible rulemaking since it conflicted with the statutory language.

3. 3 ISSUE (variations on a theme) Does the ADA (statute itself) permit the EEOC regulation that allows business to refuse to hire an individual because his performance on the job would endanger his health/safety? Is the EEOC regulation an unreasonable interpretation of the statute (exceeding the permissible rulemaking because it conflicted with statutory language) and therefore invalid? Does ADA allow employers to reject people on the basis of threat to others ONLY or does ADA also allow employer defense of threat to others and SELF?

4. 4 HOLDING Unanimous decision that EEOC regulation was reasonable interpretation of the statute and should be struck. Yes, ADA allows employers to reject (or fire) an applicant who if employed would threaten his/her health.

5. 5 REASONING Court does not rely on the direct threat language only. It interprets the job related and business necessity defense to give Chevron latitude to consider the safety of the employee. Court does not curry legislative history (e.g., paternalism) on this issue; looks instead to statutory language. Court does require that the evidence that employment would threaten the applicant’s health be reliable.

6. 6 SIGNIFICANCE What are Echazabal’s chances for a successful challenge on appeal? Court apparently has reversed the Congressional intent on drafting the ADA—which was to reject the “threat to self” rule. Court clarifies that the “threat to self” is a valid defense to an otherwise qualified individual with disability. Court appears to allow employers to consider the costs of health care and compliance with federal safety standards (OSHA) in hiring decisions.