News Release

NCD #02-366
June 10, 2002
Contact: Mark S. Quigley
202-272-2004
202-272-2074 TTY
mquigley@ncd.gov

National Council on Disability Appalled by Latest Supreme Court Decision on Americans with Disabilities Act

WASHINGTON--The National Council on Disability (NCD) is appalled by today's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Mario Echazabal (No. 00-1406), according to NCD chairperson Marca Bristo.

In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) allows employers, not people with disabilities, to decide whether the risk of a certain job is too great, therefore excluding people with disabilities from applying or continuing to work at a position even if they pose no threat to others and they can perform all job functions and meet external health and safety standards.

In so ruling, the Court gave deference to U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations that expanded upon ADA's definition of "direct threat" to permit the exclusion from the workplace of people with disabilities which that pose a direct threat to themselves.

According to NCD chairperson Marca Bristo, "The Americans with Disabilities Act is designed to secure civil rights for persons with disabilities based on their abilities and without regard to myths and misconceptions about their employment capabilities."

"The text and legislative history of ADA demonstrate that eliminating paternalism was an overriding purpose of Congress and that Congress viewed the exclusion of people with disabilities who pose only a direct threat to themselves as an impermissible act of paternalism. This case was about who is best able to make those most personal of decisions, which here involved encountering some future risk to health in the workplace. The Supreme Court's decision endorses 'the assumption that people with disabilities are not competent to make informed, wise, or safe life choices,' which is 'the most long standing and insidious aspect' of the discrimination that is banned by the ADA," Bristo added.

Mario Echazabal dramatically exemplifies the situation ADA was intended to prevent and the harm that results from the application of the EEOC's expanded notion of direct threat. Echazabal successfully performed the essential functions of various jobs in Chevron's refinery coker unit for some twenty years without accident or injury to himself or anybody else. Echazabal was capable of making independent and informed decisions about his employment and medical treatment. Record evidence establishes that Echazabal continued in full consultation with his treating physicians, who, in fact stated he had "no limitations," continued to work in the coker unit at the refinery with full knowledge of his medical condition and of the chemicals and solvents to which he was exposed. Chevron was fully apprised and aware of Echazabal's health status during these years, through the repeated appointments and evaluations conducted at the Chevron refinery clinic while Echazabal continued to work amidst the hepatoxins.

Men and women in many different professions freely accept work under hazardous conditions every day for reasons that include higher salaries and personal satisfaction. Today the Supreme Court took away the right of people with disabilities to exercise that very same right, simply because of their disability. The Supreme Court endorsement of the "threat to self" defense encourages the view that people with disabilities need to be protected from themselves and from their choices.

The Court's holding not only curtails the civil rights of people with disabilities to equal employment opportunity, but egregiously infringes upon on their human right to assume the risk and responsibility for their own decisions, as well.

For more information, contact Mark S. Quigley, Jeff Rosen, or Joan Durocher at 202-272-2004 or 202-272-2074 TTY.