Echazabal V. Chevron

ECHAZABAL V. CHEVRON 1

The Facts

Mario Echazabal had worked at Chevron for his entire career, employed through various maintenance contractors, not by Chevron. Twenty years into his career a position with Chevron doing the same work he was doing as a contractor presented itself. As most people in his situation would have done, Echazabal applied and was put through pre-employment testing which included a physical examination. Through this physical examination it was brought to light that Mr. Echazabal’s liver wasn’t functioning at the proper level. Chevron officials concluded that his twenty years of working at their facility around hazardous solvents and chemicals was probably the underlying reason for his liver problem. Unfortunate for Mr. Echazabal, he was denied the position as Chevron did not want Mr. Echazabel’s health negatively impacted any more than it had been. Echazabal’s work with the contractor in the Chevron facility continued. Three years passed and Mr. Echazabal again applied for the position with Chevron, was denied for the same reasons as before, but this time his contractor agency was asked to immediately remove him from the location and position as they once again feared for his health. Echazabal soon filed suit claiming that Chevron not allowing him the position was illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chevron responded by claiming that he would be a direct threat to himself if left to continue to work in the position. Under the ADA, an individual may not pose a threat to the health or safety of others in the work place; it mentions nothing of an individual posing a threat to themselves. Chevron asks that congresses’ intent be ignored as allowing Mr. Echazabal to work in the given position opens them up for tort liability. Circuit Judge Reinhardt concluded that the ADA’s intentions in regards to direct threat remain...