Top Court: Safety Restricts Disability Law

By Steven Brostoff, Washington Editor

NU Online News Service, June 10, 4:14 p.m. EST,Washington?A United States Supreme Court decision, whichsays that the Americans With Disabilities Act does not preventemployers from denying disabled employees jobs that might endangertheir health, was praised today by a business group.

"Essentially, this means an individual with a disability cannotuse the ADA to force an employer to provide a ?reasonableaccommodation' for work in a location that may be hazardous tohim," said Quentin Riegel, deputy general counsel with theWashington-based National Association of Manufacturers.

"Needless to say, industrial employers across the country feelvindicated by this common sense ruling," he added.

In the case of Chevron v. Echazabal, the issue waswhether a regulation issued by the Equal Employment OpportunityCommission, which allows a company to refuse to hire an individualfor a job that would endanger his or her own health, is supercededby the ADA.

In a unanimous decision written by Justice David Souter, thecourt said that ADA does not nullify the EEOC rule.

The case involves one Mario Echazabal, who worked for anindependent contractor at an oil refinery owned by Chevron. Hetwice applied for a job with Chevron, but was turned down followinga physical examination, which revealed a liver abnormality, whichwould be aggravated by exposure to toxins at the Chevronrefinery.

Moreover, as a result of the examination, Chevron asked theindependent contractor to reassign Mr. Echazabal to a job where hewould not be exposed to toxins.

Eventually, the contractor laid off Mr. Echazabal. He then filedsuit against Chevron, charging that its refusal to hire him, oreven allow him to continue working in the plant for the independentcontractor due to his liver condition, violated the ADA.

Chevron responded that the EEOC regulation allowed its action,and the high court agreed. The court said the the EEOC rule isreasonable. Since Congress has not spoken exhaustively on thisissue, the court said, the rule should stand.