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