Eventually, the EEOC broadly expanded the ADA’s direct threat provision to include a harm-to-self defense. As a qualification standard, the EEOC carried the defense one step further by adding that an individual should not pose a direct threat to the individual or others. In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split by determining that the ADA recognizes a harm-to-self defense and upheld the EEOC’s regulation. In Echazabal, Mario Echazabal could only obtain a job at Chevron’s oil refinery after passing a physical examination. The exam showed liver damage as a result of Hepatitis C, which would be worsened if he worked at the refinery where he would be exposed to toxins and harmful chemicals. After Chevron denied Echazabal a job, Echazabal sued Chevron alleging it violated the ADA on the basis of his disability, his liver condition. Chevron, relying on the EEOC’s regulation, alleged that allowing Echazabal to work would pose a direct threat to his own health. Deferring to the EEOC’s regulation, the Supreme Court expanded the direct threat standard to also include harm to the individual noting that it reasonably falls within the general “job related” and …show more content…
The Sixth Circuit “doubt[ed] that the reports of Michael’s medical witnesses each reflect an ‘individualized inquiry . . . ” and ultimately concluded that the City’s decision was objectively reasonable, which is all that the law requires. The court noted that an employer’s determination is objectively reasonable when the employer relies on a medical opinion that is objectively reasonable and can remain objectively reasonable even if it conflicts with another medical opinion. The Sixth Circuit agreed with the employer that Michael was not a qualified individual entitled to ADA