Workers' liberty, workers' welfare: the Supreme Court speaks on the rights of disabled employees.

Ronald Bayer
Author Information
  1. Ronald Bayer: Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA. rb8@columbia.edu

Abstract

On June 10, 2002, a unanimous US Supreme Court rejected the claim by Mario Echazabal that he had been denied his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act when Chevron USA had refused to employ him because he had hepatitis C. Chevron believed that Echazabal's exposure to hepatotoxic chemicals in its refinery would pose a grave risk to his health. This case poses critical questions about the ethics of public health: When, if ever, is paternalism justified? Must choice always trump other values? What ought to be the balance between welfare and liberty? Strikingly, the groups that came to Echazabal's defense adopted an antipaternalistic posture fundamentally at odds with the ethical foundations of occupational health and safety policy.

References

  1. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1991 Aug;52(8):A440-1 [PMID: 1927903]

MeSH Term

Civil Rights
Persons with Disabilities
Disease Susceptibility
Employment
Freedom
Hazardous Substances
Hepatitis C
Humans
Industry
Male
Maximum Allowable Concentration
Occupational Health
Paternalism
Public Health
Risk Assessment
Supreme Court Decisions
United States
Work Capacity Evaluation

Chemicals

Hazardous Substances

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0SupremeCourtrightsChevronEchazabal'shealthJune102002unanimousUSrejectedclaimMarioEchazabaldeniedAmericansDisabilitiesActUSArefusedemployhepatitisCbelievedexposurehepatotoxicchemicalsrefineryposegraveriskcaseposescriticalquestionsethicspublichealth:everpaternalismjustified?Mustchoicealwaystrumpvalues?balancewelfareliberty?StrikinglygroupscamedefenseadoptedantipaternalisticposturefundamentallyoddsethicalfoundationsoccupationalsafetypolicyWorkers'libertyworkers'welfare:speaksdisabledemployees

Similar Articles

Cited By