Echazabal vs Chevron USA, Inc - Case Study Example

Echazabal v. Chevron USA, Inc i. Summary of the Relevant Facts Echazabal had worked for Chevron for a period of twenty years underIrwin Industries, a firm which was contracted by Chevron to work on some areas of the firm. After this loyal service for all these years, Echazabal thought that it would only be fair if Chevron would take him in as their employee, instead of working with a contracted firm. Consequently, he applied for the job at the Cocker Unit, the unit he had worked for in several years. However, the firm realized that despite his qualification for the job, he was suffering from Hepatitis C and therefore could not be offered the job. Echazabal sought legal redress but lost the case. ii. The Central Issues Presented In The Case That Were Decided By The Court The issue presented by Echazabal was that Chevron was being discriminatory on the basis that he was disadvantaged. According to Echazabal, he had worked in this company for the last twenty years at the unit he wanted to be employed and all had been okay. He therefore did not understand the hypocrisy of the firm on the basis that he was not healthy enough. On the other hand, Chevron was concerned about his health. Before this, he was not an employee of Chevron. Now that he was to be employed by Chevron, he had to pass the health test which he did not. Therefore, Chevron had the responsibility to inform him that his condition was not good to continue working in such a facility. iii. Laws that were Relied Upon by the Court in Deciding the Case According to ADA law that protects qualified employees from discrimination on the basis of their disability. Echazabal was qualified enough to take the job at Chevron, having worked at this unit for the last twenty years. However, there is an exception to this law. This law states that when an individual poses threat to others because of his disability, he may not be considered for the job. Echazabal was suffering from Hepatitis C and according to Chevron; this was a disability that was a reason enough to deny him the job. It was true that he posed no threat to others. However, the threat was on him. His condition would worsen if he continued to work in this plant. Meze (2005) notes that the court found this reason to be valid. iv. The Outcome of the Case (Holding) Upon a careful review of the case, the court held that Chevron was not guilty as charged. The majority judges noted with concern that Echazabal was suffering from Hepatitis C. As such, his health was at risk by being in the unit where he had applied for the job. The law asserts that the threat must have been posed by the disabled person to others. However, the spirit of the law is to defend harm to anyone within the firm, including the disabled from further harm based on his or her disability. As such, the court found Chevron to have acted within the spirit of the law. v. Analysis of how the Judges Reached the Holding of the Case This case had to be observed keenly by the judges. Echazabal had a very strong case. He held that having been at the firm for last twenty years at the very unit he wanted to be considered for the job, though under a different firm that was contracted by Chevron. The only thing that Echazabal wanted was to be taken as an employee of Chevron so he could work directly as their employee. However, Chevron holds that before he was an employee of a different firm and his health was a concern of that different firm. Not that he wanted to be an employee of Chevron; his health would directly be their concern. He therefore had to pass the test. When he failed to pass this test, Chevron had no option but to decline the application. Chevron acted under the law which stipulated that the employee should not pose a threat to others. In this case, Echazabal posed a threat to himself as this unit was not good enough for his health. Majority of the judges found this reason valid enough (Bagley & Savage, 2010). vi. Laws Relied Upon by Dissent in Reaching their Decision The dissent on the other hand, held that this firm had Echazabal in this unit for the last twenty years. All these time they had not noticed any inconvenience. It was therefore a little too hypocritical for this firm to sideline him. If they cared for his health, as they claim to, then why did they wait for that long to do this test? It is true that he was not their employee. However, he was working in their facility. Why did they not advise the then employer to conduct the test if it was not within their jurisdiction? This belated concern was not a valid reason to deny him this opportunity. vii. The Position Taken by Majority in the Case I am not in agreement with the views of the majority in this case. It is true that the law exists that protects workers when they are within various places in a given firm. I also agree with the fact that taking the spirit of the law, Echazabal posed a threat to himself by continuing to work in this unit. However, this gentleman had been working in this firm for the last twenty years. This is well past half the number of possible years he had worked here. All this while, all had been okay. Upon the realization that he had this complication, he visited a number of physicians, none of whom advised against working in this unit. It was therefore possible that his condition would not be affected by this unit. viii. Possible Reasons why Echazabal was Willing to Risk his Health to Work in the Coker Unit and the Ethics Associated with this Decision Echazabal had clear and very valid reasons why he thought it would be wise to work in this unit. He served there for twenty years and therefore has enough experience. When diagnosed with this disease, none of the physicians advised him against working in this unit, a fact that he took to mean approval to work in the unit. Moreover, he had to get medication for his job and this would require some cash. He had no option but continue doing what he was best in which was very ethical. He only wanted to retain his job which was his only income generating activity. ix. The Case from an Ethical Point of View Taking this case from an ethical point of view in this case, the decision of the judges was not fair at all. It is true that Echazabal was suffering from Hepatitis C, a condition that was appropriate to work with at a Coker unit. It is very ethical to come up with measures that would ensure that an individual is not affected by such conditions as was Echazabal because of their duties. Therefore, the move to test him and inform him of his condition was ethical enough. However, it is questionable that this company had not thought of doing this for the last twenty years that Echazabal had been working with them. If it was a real concern, there would be a mechanism where an individual is regularly checked of this disease if he or she is working in the firm, whether employed directly by Chevron or not. This belated concern would not have been given any regard by the court. x. Possible Ways to Avert such Scenarios To avoid such scenarios from happening again in this firm, the management should ensure that everyone working in their facility, whether directly employed by them or not, is subjected to thorough screening at regular intervals to determine their suitability for various tasks. They should be informed of the reason for this, and the possible actions that might be taken under the law to protect both the individual and others within the facility. References Bagley, C. E. & Savage, D. (2010). Managers and the Legal Environment: Strategies for the 21st Century. New York: Cengage. Meze, S. (2005). Disabling Interpretations: The Americans With Disabilities Act In Federal Court. New York: University of Pittsburgh Press.   Read More