Exactly. That's what I'm worried about.  Sure, the Court talked about the exposure to toxic chemicals being potentially life-threatening, but I can see companies taking this a step or two further.

Grrrr... this Court has not been kind to the ADA.

Kat

On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:08:25 -0400 "Cleveland, Kyle E." <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Kat, it's all about precedent.  I can see this small piece of gravel
starting a landslide over the next decade.  What's going to happen to those
folks (like me) who keyboard all day and discover that typing exacerbates
spasticity?  The employers will eventually be able to say, "We can't hire
you for this job because it has the potential to worsen your condition."
Sure, it seems unlikely, but what corporation would not like to gut the ADA
until it is completely powerless to protect the disabled?  Large fires are
started by small sparks.

-Kyle

-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy Salkin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 5:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Supreme Court Decision Affecting ADA Rights


Today the US Supreme Court issued a decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v
Echazabal, saying that disabled employees do not have the right to hold jobs
determental to their health if so determined by the employers.  This is a
victory for employers.

The case originally involved Mr. Echazabal, who was an independent
contractor for oil refineries, until Chevron refused to hire him because he
had be diagnosed with a liver condition, which the company felt would be
excaberated by exposure to toxic chemicals.  He then filed suit, claiming
his rights to hold a job in the industry was protected by the ADA.  The
District Court held in favour of Chevron, but then the Ninth Circuit Appeals
court reversed the decision, and the case was then remanded to the Supreme
Court.

"It said a U.S. appeals court was wrong in ruling that employers must hire
disabled workers, even if the job poses a direct threat to their health or
safety. The appeals court said employers can require only that the disabled
employees not pose a significant risk to others in the workplace."
(ABCNews.com)

I'm of two minds about this.  On one hand, it seems to me it's the right of
each person to decide whether to apply for a job or not.  On the other hand,
the employer has the right to decide not to hire a person, as long as it's
not discrimatory.  And I honestly don't think concern for one's safety is
discrimatory at the face of it.  However, I can foresee a lot of grey areas
in this one.  Any thoughts, anyone?

Kat