|
Refusing to hire disabled applicants who
may suffer harm on the job
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an employer
does not have to hire a job applicant if the essential duties
of the job would pose a direct threat to the health or safety
of the applicant. Such an applicant would not be a "qualified
individual" under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA).
Mario Echazabal claimed that the Chevron Corporation unlawfully
denied him employment. He had been working at the company's
refinery for one of its subcontractors. When he applied for
direct employment, company doctors found a liver condition
that would be aggravated by continued exposure to refinery
chemicals. He then lost his job with the subcontractor when
Chevron requested that Echazabal be reassigned to a job that
avoided further exposure.
Echazabal claimed that the ADA allows employers to screen
out applicants only if they pose a threat to the health or
safety of others. However, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission's (EEOC) regulation goes further, disqualifying
an applicant when a disability poses a threat to his or her
own health or safety or that of others. The Supreme Court
said it was reasonable for the EEOC to clarify the ADA regarding
applicants who may themselves sustain harm from a particular
job.
The Court cautioned that its decision does not allow employers
to draw broad conclusions about the employability of applicants
with particular disabilities. Employers must base the threat-to-self
defense on a reasonable medical judgment regarding the specific
applicant and an individualized assessment of the risks and
harm. Chevron U.S.A. v. Echazabal (US Supreme Court, June
10, 2002) No. 00-1406.
|
