Supreme Court Rules on Chevron Oil case:

Can an employer fire you if he thinks you will hurt yourself on the job because of your epilepsy? The Supreme Court answered this question with a resounding "yes" in the Chevron Oil, Inc. v. Echazabal case. The Court upheld an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation under the Americans with Disabilities Act that permits employers to refuse to hire someone for a position if the employer believes the individual poses a direct threat to his own health and safety because of a disability. The case is particularly interesting because the ADA itself does not contain such a provision; it only provides that an employer need not hire someone who poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. However, the EEOC expanded the provision by regulation to apply to people who would be a threat to their own health or safety as well, and it was that regulation which was under review.

While the case has struck a blow to the rights of workers with disabilities across the country - because it is not up to you to decide for yourself whether you can safely perform a job, your employer can decide for you - the case is not all bad news for people with epilepsy. Past legal decisions on epilepsy under various laws have made it clear that an employer's decision not to hire someone based upon a risk to themselves must be based upon a significant probability of harm - not a remote or unlikely possibility in the individual circumstances - and a medical opinion without such an analysis of likelihood of risk will not do. In the Echazabal case, the Court made clear that an employer cannot arbitrarily decide when someone poses a health or safety risk. Instead, the decision must be based on reasonable, objective medical evidence and there must be no reasonable accommodation available that would reduce the risk to health or safety. The Supreme Court justices sent the case back to the trial judge to decide whether the medical evidence of risk that Echazabal was exposed to was objective and reasonable, and whether his disability could be accommodated.

Further analysis:

The United States Supreme Court has dealt a serious blow to workers with disabilities in Chevron Oil, Inc. v. Echazabal. The Court held that the Americans with Disabilities Act allows an employer to discriminate against an individual who, by working in a particular position, would pose a direct threat to his own health because of his existing disability. It remanded the case to a trial court to determine if, in this particular case, working in an oil refinery would pose a direct threat to the employee's health because of his existing hepatitis c.

In this case, Mario Echazabal had worked for nearly two decades in an oil refinery as a contractor. When he applied for a permanent position with the company, a pre-employment medical exam revealed that he had hepatitis c, a serious liver disease. The company refused to hire him, claiming that prolonged exposure to the toxins in the refinery would cause more damage to his liver; notably, the company agreed with Mr. Echazabal that he was not a threat to the health and safety of his coworkers. Mr. Echazabal claimed that the job would not injure his health, and that even if it would, it was his decision to make, not the company's decision. When the company refused to reconsider its decision, Mr. Echazabal sued for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against a qualified individual with a disability. Under the statute, however, an employer can refuse to hire or fire an employee who would pose a direct threat to the health and safety of others in the workplace because of his disability. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) which enforces this law, has enacted regulations which also permit employers to fire or refuse to hire an employee who poses a direct threat to his own health or safety. The issue in this case was whether this regulation was valid.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii and the territory of Guam, agreed with Mr. Echazabal that the EEOC's regulations went too far and were not valid. It observed that the ADA was enacted to eliminate paternalistic attitudes like Chevron's, and concluded that under the law, an employer could only refuse to hire a person if he posed a direct threat to the health and safety of others in the workplace. The Supreme Court reversed this decision. As a result, employers can refuse to hire or fire an employee with a disability if, based on reasonable medical evidence, the employer believes the individual poses a direct threat to his own health and safety or that of other workers in the workplace and that threat cannot be eliminated by use of a reasonable accommodation.

For now the impact of this decision is limited to employment since the regulations at issue apply only to employers. However, this does not mean employers and others are free to discriminate against all people with epilepsy. An employer must show that the individual, because of his specific medical history, poses a direct threat to himself or others. This will be difficult to do because the risk to health and safety will vary depending not only on the type of job or activity involved, but on the individual's personal medical history. For many people with epilepsy, having a seizure on the job is only a remote possibility, and even if one were to occur, the risk of an injury to the person or a coworker is also low either because of the type of job involved or the use of a reasonable accommodation.

Still many employers may mistakenly believe that there is a significant risk. That is why now more than ever before, it will be important to educate employers and others about epilepsy. Seizures take many different forms, and vary considerably in frequency and duration from one person to another. Many individuals have auras warning them that a seizure is coming. All these factors may decrease the risk involved in a particular job. It may also be helpful to tell employers that in many states, because the risk of another seizure decreases significantly after being seizure- free for three months, an individual only needs to be seizure-free for three months before obtaining a driver's license. The risk involved in most jobs, whether to the individual or to others, is probably less than that involved in driving. Reasonable accommodations are also available. For example, the use of a safety harness or spotter, reassigning nonessential job functions such as driving, or reassigning an individual to a different job until they are seizure-free for three months may eliminate any existing risk. The Job Accommodation Network, (800) 526-7234, can also help you identify job-specific accommodations. For more information about epilepsy or epilepsy-training programs, contact the affiliate near you.

©2002 While this material is designed to provide accurate and current information on the subject matter involved, the Epilepsy Foundation and the authors cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this publication. This fact sheet is not a legal document and does not provide legal advice or opinion. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.