United States: Supreme Court Embraces ADA "Direct Threat" Defense

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) expressly permits an employer to refuse to employ an individual with a disability if the individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others in the workplace. But does the ADA also permit an employer to refuse to employ a disabled individual whose presence on the job would pose a direct threat to the individual’s own health? In a unanimous decision issued on June 10, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal that refusing to hire a disabled individual for this reason can be consistent with the ADA.

The Supreme Court’s Decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal

In the Echazabal case, an oil refinery refused to hire an applicant with a Hepatitis-C-damaged liver because the company’s doctors stated the applicant’s liver condition would be exacerbated by exposure to workplace chemicals. The applicant sued the refinery, alleging that it had violated the ADA by refusing to hire him because of his disability. The employer’s defense relied on an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulation permitting employers to refuse to employ an individual whose disability would pose a direct threat to his own health or safety in the workplace. After a lower appellate court held that the EEOC’s regulation was at odds with the ADA and invalid, the employer appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the regulation was consistent with the ADA. In reaching its decision, the Court found that the ADA’s provision allowing the rejection of disabled applicants who would pose a direct threat to others did not preclude an interpretation of the ADA allowing the rejection of disabled applicants who would pose a direct threat only to themselves if hired. To hold otherwise, the Court noted, could create a conflict between the ADA and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which requires employers to provide, as far as possible, safe and healthful working conditions for all employees.

The Supreme Court found the EEOC regulation to be reasonable and rejected the claim that the regulation promoted the type of workplace paternalism that the ADA was designed to eliminate. However, the Court emphasized that to prevail on a "direct threat" defense, an employer must conduct an "individualized assessment" to determine the applicant’s ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job.

Practical Implications

By ruling that employers can lawfully reject job applicants whose disabilities pose a direct threat to their own health and safety in the workplace, the Supreme Court has shielded employers from the no-win situation of risking ADA liability if they refuse to hire disabled applicants for jobs in which the applicants are likely to suffer serious harm. The Echazabal decision does not, however, permit the rejection of disabled applicants based on generalized notions of an elevated risk of harm to individuals with a disability. Employers wishing to base an employment decision on a direct threat to a disabled individual’s own health should always make an individualized assessment of the degree and likelihood of harm that the individual’s disability would pose in the workplace and should consider whether reasonable accommodations short of undue hardship would eliminate the risk of harm or reduce it to insignificant levels. The decision should be based on reasonable medical judgments and current medical knowledge.