EMAIL THIS     PRINTABLE VERSION

Intro  |  High court challenge  |  Who should know — and how much? |  
A societal question

High court challenge

THIS YEAR, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ruled in the case of Chevron vs. Echazabal, which answered the question of whether an employer can refuse to hire someone with a disability because the performance of the job would pose a direct threat to the worker’s health or safety.

Mario Echazabal worked at a Chevron oil refinery for 20 years as a laborer employed by maintenance contractors. When he applied directly to Chevron for a job, the company determined him qualified and extended a job offer contingent upon passing a physical exam.

But when the pre-employment physical revealed a liver condition later discovered to be hepatitis C, Chevron rescinded the job offer and also told the contractors that Echazabal could no longer work at the plant. The company maintained that exposure to solvents and chemicals would hasten his disease and eventually kill him.

Echazabal sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act claiming that Chevron discriminated against him for having hepatitis C. Chevron argued that Echazabal posed a direct threat to himself. Neither party disputed whether hepatitis C should be protected under the ADA.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California disagreed with Chevron and ruled that a “direct threat” merely pertains to others in the workforce.

Studying state and federal laws that protect people from genetic discrimination, Marisa Anne Pagnattaro found that Georgia and federal laws offer little protection for workers.

“The 9th Circuit is saying you should be able to work at a job, even though it means it may kill you,” Pagnattaro said. But in June, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the decision, voting 9–0 that “direct threat” also applies to oneself.

Pagnattaro points out that this case has ramifications in the genetic context.

“An employer who contends that a person with a genetic propensity for cancer who is more at risk in a certain job than others could be construed as one who is a ‘direct threat’ to himself and should be barred from that job,” she said.

“It worries me that people would be precluded from doing certain types of jobs based on their genetic makeup,” Pagnattaro said. “On the other hand, we might be facing way down the road a situation where you’d want to take that into consideration.”

For example, a person who has a propensity for a particular disease that is induced by stress may take that into consideration when planning a career path. But, according to Pagnattaro, whether or not that should be self-selecting is the issue.

Former Celera Genomics President J. Craig Venter has been widely quoted as envisioning a “not-too-distant future” in which anyone can get a DVD with his or her entire genetic code on it.

“It’s a bizarre thought, but it’s really not that far off,” Pagnattaro said. “You can be aware of things to make your own choices. It shouldn’t be an employer’s position to say you can’t take this job because it might cause you to have health problems.”

EMAIL THIS     PRINTABLE VERSION