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