Document: 536 U.S. 73 CHEVRON U. S. A. INC.v.ECHAZABAL. No. 00-1406. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued February 27, 2002. Decided June 10, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT Respondent Echazabal worked for independent contractors at one petitioner Chevron Inc.'s oil refineries until refused to hire him because a liver condition — which its doctors said would be exacerbated by continued exposure toxins refinery and contractor employing laid off in response Chevron`s request that it reassign job without or remove from refinery. filed suit, claiming, among other things, actions violated Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA). defended under an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulation permitting defense worker's disability on pose direct threat his health. The District granted summary judgment, but Ninth Circuit reversed, finding exceeded scope permissible rulemaking ADA. Held: ADA permits EEOC`s regulation. Pp. 78-87. (a) ADA`s discrimination definition covers number things employer might do block disabled person advancing workplace, such as "using qualification standards ... screen out tend [such] individual," 42 C. § 12112(b)(6). And along 12113(a), creates affirmative action standard "shown job-related consistent business necessity," "may include requirement individual shall not health safety individuals workplace," 12113(b). carries step further, allowing potential worker risks own safety. 78-79. (b) relies canon expressio unius exclusio alterius expressing item associated group excludes another left unmentioned argument ADA, recognizing only threats others, precludes matter law. first strike against expression-exclusion rule here is statute, includes threat-to-others provision example legitimate qualifications are "job-related necessity." These spacious defensive categories seem give agency good deal discretion setting limits standards. expansive include" phrase points directly away sort exclusive specifications claims. Strike two failure identify any series terms should understood go hand hand, abridged circumstances supporting sensible inference term must have been meant excluded. claims Congress`s adoption exception was deliberate omission threat-to-self included implementing precursor Rehabilitation 1973, has language identical But this unequivocal implication congressional intent. Because EEOC interpreting Act, did establish clear, pairing self others. And, likely Congress used knowing what had made earlier statute. third simply there no apparent stopping point that, specifying defense, intended negative about those whose could considered. For example, defend refusal when worker`s threaten others outside workplace. 79-84. (c) Since spoken exhaustively health, can claim adherence Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 837, 843, so long makes sense statutory reasons claiming reasonable include, inter alia, allows avoid risk violating Occupational Safety Health 1970 (OSHA). Whether liable OSHA hiring who consents job`s particular dangers open question, courting trouble OSHA. resolution exemplifies substantive choices agencies expected make leaves intersection competing objectives both imprecisely marked subject administrative leeway. Nor called unreasonable kind workplace paternalism outlaw. trying get refusals even break classes people, while act their reliance untested pretextual stereotypes. This sham protection just disallows, demanding particularized enquiry into harms employee probably face. Finally, reasonably falls within general "job related" "business necessity" does reduce "direct threat" surplusage. conclusion clear otherwise fought over litigation rulemaking. 84-87. 226 F. 3d 1063, reversed remanded. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Stephen M. Shapiro argued cause petitioner. With briefs were James D. Holzhauer, Robert P. Davis, Evan Tager. Lisa Schiavo Blatt States et al. amici curiae urging reversal. her brief Solicitor General Olson, Deputy Clement, Assistant Attorney McCallum, Marleigh Dover, Matthew Collette, Phillip B. Sklover, Carolyn L. Wheeler, J. Gregory. Samuel R. Bagenstos respondent. Larry Minsky Chai Feldblum.* JUSTICE SOUTER 1 A authorizes performance endanger owing disability. question case whether 1990, 104 Stat. 328, 12101 seq. (1994 ed. Supp. V), regulation.1 We hold does. 2 * Beginning 1972, respondent Mario owned Twice he applied Chevron, offered if pass company`s physical examination. See 12112(d)(3) ed.). Each time, exam showed abnormality damage, eventually being identified Hepatitis C, aggravated In each instance, company withdrew offer, second time asked either harmful chemicals altogether. early 1996. 3 ultimately removed federal court, (ADA Act) refusing him, let continue working plant, disability, condition.2 see 29 CFR 1630.15(b)(2) (2001). Although medical witnesses disputed judgment Echazabal`s function impaired further damage conditions refinery, Chevron. It held raised genuine issue material fact acted relying doctors' advice, regardless accuracy. 4 On appeal, threshold before, ibid., 1066, n. (2000). judgment. court rested position text itself explicitly employer`s right adopt employment barring anyone place risk, saying nothing himself. majority reasoned "by `other workplace,' statute persons including himself [direct threat] defense," id., 1066-1067, indicated unreasonably conflict policy 1067-1070. went reject "`otherwise qualified'" perform job, holding ability one`s "`essential function'" job. Id., 1070. 5 decision conflicted Eleventh Circuit, Moses American Nonwovens, 97 446, 447 (1996), tension Seventh Koshinski Decatur Foundry, 177 599, 603 (1999). certiorari, 534 991 (2001), now reverse. II 6 Section 102 seq., prohibits "discriminat[ion] qualified regard to" employer, "hiring." 12112(a). "discriminat[ion]" disability." By same definition, well separate provision, Such may "a 12113(b), cannot safely accommodation, 12113(a). regulation, well: "The `qualification standard' workplace." 7 here, since says seeking deference agency, argues unambiguously adopted authority delegated Congress, 12116, after notice-and-comment Mead Corp., 533 218, 227 (2001); 842-844 (1984). Echazabal, contrary, law interpretation leeway beyond literal text. 8 As textual bar law, loses gap fill. 843-844. recognizes generality providing plaintiff screened "qualification standards" "jobrelated (and accommodation cure difficulty posed employment). Without more, provisions allow turn someone work serious That possibility eliminated, however, specification "`qualification standards' 12113(b); also 12111(3) (defining others). contrasts 87 357, amended, 701 antedating recognized employer's consider workers threatening they extend another, reads imply count. 9 follows interpretive canon, est alterius, "expressing [an] unmentioned." Vonn, 535 55, 65 (2002). fine applies, joins some showing not. See, e. g., ibid.; Dominion Industries, States, 532 822, 836 Pauley BethEnergy Mines, 501 680, 703 (1991). 10 quotes. harm-to-others categories, (or absence action, court) confirmed, magnified, falling relation necessity veto Far position, phrasing New York Telephone Co., 434 159, 169 (1977); Federal Land Bank St. Paul Bismarck Lumber 314 95, 100 (1941).3 11 Just suggesting exclusiveness missing, essential extrastatutory ingredient demonstration, bespeaks implication. depends identifying more E. Crawford, Construction Statutes 337 (1940) (expressio "`properly applies natural association ideas mind reader expressed set way strong contrast omitted enforces inference'" (quoting State ex rel. Curtis De Corps, 134 Ohio 295, 299, 16 N. 2d 459, 462 (1938))); supra. 12 established series, self, appears choice omit latter signal defense`s scope. closest comes excepts protected "qualified handicap" individuals," but, like later pose. nonetheless extended cover employment, 1613.702(f) (1990), regulation`s tandem threat-to-self, intent exclude it. 13 stand treating consequence While amplify upon exclusion three adopting regulations 28 42.540(l)(1) (1990) (Department Justice), 32.3 Labor), 45 84.3(k)(1) Human Services).4 stretch, then, say usage, source practice elsewhere, connected closely leaving ignoring twin. 14 Even we put aside variety experience, look than speak still equivocal. Consider reference somewhat different facts. If "threats health" read mean specific listing carried message. most probable reading specify lead limit possibilities. basis difference agency`s discretion. these here. Instead making issue, language, full Did wrong recognize assume free already done Act`s language? There tell. Omitting self-harm using very equivocal best. No possible. 15 applying When specified possibly workplace? Typhoid Mary come meat packer defenseless sued turned away? 12113(d). Expressio fails B S., calling unsurprising: moral concerns aside, wishes lost sickness, excessive turnover retirement death, state tort national 1970, 84 1590, 651 none legitimate, focusing concern will enough show entitled survive. 17 known instance enforcement, threatened relied willing accept mind, shows invoking possible liability red herring excuse covert discrimination. side this. "to assure far every man woman Nation safe healthful conditions," 651(b), specifically obligated "furnish employees hazards causing death harm employees," 654(a)(1). actually knowingly consented Brief Amici Curiae 19, 7, denying asking trouble: individual`s operate equal loggerheads OSHA, ensure "each" "every" worker. Courts would, course, resolve found 18 fairly true sights passed 12101(a)(5) (recognizing "overprotective rules policies" form discrimination). taken aiming demonstrated stereotypes.5 Its disallows protection, through demands "based current knowledge and/or best available objective evidence," expressly "individualized assessment present functions job," reached considering, imminence severity portended. 1630.2(r) certainly acting zone saw between rejecting documented himself, take chances sake getting job.6 19 our conclusions objection "surplusage," Babbitt Sweet Home Chapter, Communities Great Ore., 515 687, 698 (1995). mere accomplished explicit based lack merely provisions, nor less responsible option further. useful attention indispensable. 20 Accordingly, reverse Appeals remand proceedings opinion. 21 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal College Environmental Medicine Craig Stewart; Chamber Commerce Roy T. Englert, Jr., Kathryn Zecca, Bokat, Robin Conrad; Employers Group Fred W. Alvarez Christine Kendrick; Advisory Council Ann Elizabeth Reesman, Jan Amundson, Quentin Riegel; Pacific Legal Foundation Anne Hayes Reed Hopper; Society Resource Management Peter Petesch John Duvall. affirmance Association People Townsend Rich, Arlene Mayerson, Daniel Kohrman, Ira Burnim, Jennifer Mathis; Civil Liberties Union Coles, Esseks, Steven Shapiro, Lenora Lapidus; Public Catherine Hanssens Jon Davidson; National Disability Blanck, Diane Kutzko, Mark Zaiger, Douglas Oelschlaeger, Sarah Gayer; Lawyers Gary Phelan. "`qualified individual'" "can position," 12111(8) 1072 resurface concludes respondent`s individualized required leave initial appellate consideration warranted dispute purposes summary-judgment motion "disabled" argue "`reasonable accommodation.'" App. 184, phrases direction deciding all safety-related satisfy direct-threat standard, seeAlbertson's, Kirkingburg, 527 555, 569-570, (1999), implicitly precluded "indirect" "insignificant" harm. definitional describing "direct" "significant" harm, §§ 12111(3), obviously forbid pretextually applied. infra, 85-86, 5. Recognizing reopen door pretext defense. fact, issued Department Services, previously Health, Education, Welfare, "particular significance" "HEW coordinating implementation enforcement 504 794," prohibiting disabilities recipients fundsToyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Williams, 195 Unfortunately argument, congruence HEW produce statement contention legislative history contrary unpersuasive. comments decry terms, see,e. H. Rep. 101-485, pt. 2, p. 72 ("It critical paternalistic person`s disqualify applicant"); Conf. Rep., 136 Cong. Rec. 17377 (statement Sen. Kennedy) ("[A]n use HIV disease `protecting individual' opportunistic diseases exposed"), elaborate express pointed justifications usually pretextual, rooted generalities misperceptions disabilities. 74 ("Generalized fear environment, exacerbation caused stress, disability"); 101-116, (1989) violation deny applicant generalized fears applicant.... averages group-based predictions. legislation requires assessments"). Similarly, several decisions Title VII, employers discriminatory practices "consistent 2000e-2(k), women jobs seen too risky. Dothard Rawlinson, 433 321, 335 Automobile Workers Johnson Controls, 499 187, 202 Those cases, beside point, they, VII generally, concerned judgments broad category gender, assessments. Respect distinction entail requirement, claims, "neutral," stating requires, distinct disqualifying characteristics. 26. much skyscraper steelworkers vertigo well-balanced ones. 3d, 1074 (Trott, dissenting). Reasonableness formalism. occasion, try describe how acutely exhibit before class generally qualified. 31. trial courts

Category: 1