Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal

United States Supreme Court
536 U.S. 73 (2002)


Facts

Mario Echazabal (plaintiff) worked for an independent contractor at an oil refinery owned by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (Chevron) (defendant). Echazabal twice applied for a full-time job at Chevron, and each time Chevron agreed to hire him if he could pass the company’s required physical examination. Both times, Echazabal’s exams showed liver damage caused by Hepatitis C. Chevron’s doctors advised that Echazabal’s liver condition would be exacerbated by ongoing exposure to oil-refinery toxins. Chevron withdrew its offer to hire Echazabal and later asked Echazabal’s supervising contractor to reassign him to a different job with less exposure to toxic substances or remove him from the refinery. Echazabal was eventually laid off. Echazabal sued Chevron under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., alleging unlawful disability discrimination. Chevron invoked an affirmative defense, set forth by an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulation, that hiring Echazabal would have posed a direct threat to Echazabal’s health due to his preexisting condition. The district court granted summary judgment to Chevron, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that the ADA permitted a defense based on threats to other individuals in the workplace, but not threats to the disabled employee himself. Chevron sought review by the United States Supreme Court, which was granted.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Souter, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.