Chevron U. S. A. Inc. vs. Echazabal: Case Facts, Issues, Holdings

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Title, Style, and Citation
Case Facts
Case issues
Case Holdings
The rationale of the Case
Opinions
Work Cited

Title, Style, and Citation

CHEVRON U. S. A. INC. v. ECHAZABAL [2002] (United States Supreme Court), is a case showing that in today’s life, risks have become the order of the day due to their manner of inevitability. Personal independence is brought about through effective means of assessing and accepting the daily risks.

Case Facts

After congress understood the essence of individual autonomy, the Act of disabled Americans was formulated, and it states that there are many forms of discrimination, such as stereotyping and paternalism. The regulations to this Act were crucial for determining the CHEVRON U. S. A. INC. v. ECHAZABAL case in 2002 by the Supreme Court.

Case issues

The petitioner was Chevron U.S.A., Inc., and Echazabal was the respondent. Chevron refused to hire Echazabal, citing his health conditions would deteriorate due to the conditions at the workplace. The law court decided in errand of Chevron setting evidence from EEOC’s suggestions which elaborates the direct threat problem (CHEVRON U. S. A. INC. v. ECHAZABAL, [2002]). The effects of this particular decision of the Supreme Court are taking the course in today’s rulings considering that employers fail to employ qualified people because of their disabilities.

Case Holdings

The period was between 2000 and 2001 when the Supreme Court decided CHEVRON U. S. A. INC. v. ECHAZABAL. The court submitted to EEOC guidelines which allow employers to refute an engagement to any person if the position will openly impend the individual’s health. On the part of Chevron, the court reconsidered that a determination on the uninterrupted danger must be based on a personal assessment of the employee’s condition. The extent of the threat should be assessed considering the wellbeing condition hint provided by the person and no abolition can occur by sound space. Mario Echazabal had already performed several jobs in Chevron’s refinery without causing any harm to others or himself for twenty years (CHEVRON U. S. A. INC. v. ECHAZABAL, [2002]).

This shows that he was fit to make personal decisions regarding employment status and health conditions. All through this period, Chevron was aware of Echazabal’s disease through the continuous medical evaluations conducted on the employer. Many uncertainties arose among many Americans capable of working but cannot secure the opportunities due to the Chevron decision.

The rationale of the Case

The regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were the basis of the Supreme Court decision. The court submitted to EEOC regulations that grant an employer the mandate to reject a work chance to any individual if the position will be a straight threat to the individual’s well-being. The respondent argued that a threat to self was not evident in the ADA’s language, contradicted a plain of the Act, and showed inconsistency in the intention of the congress. A threat to self-defense gives employers the right to decide on the magnitude of risk that a qualified but disabled individual can or should accept to take a job.

The defense allows job owners to dismiss the job workers who do not pose health threats to other employees but are risks to their health. In Echazabal’s case, the determination was so speculative and was based on a lame medical strategy. It was a decision that could later be enacted through several changes in the ADA. This was caused by some unjustified paternalism that congress aimed to eliminate.

Opinions

The court considered that Title 1 ADA creates a defense for employers based on related job qualification standards. An individual should not be a threat to the safety and health of other persons in the workplace. However, this is if the person is not in a position to act safely with reasonable accommodation. The EEOC allows the employer to exclude employees who are potential threats to themselves. In this case, Echazabal should not have been excluded as a direct threat without a direct assessment by Chevron on his ability to continue with his job. This was an immediate requirement in the EEOC regulations where Chevron ought to have proved the threat posed by Echazabal. A personal opinion is that it is essential to derive evaluations from existing medical objectives and knowledge.

Work Cited

CHEVRON U. S. A. INC. v. ECHAZABAL [2002] (United States Supreme Court).

Click Here To Order Now!