BUSINESS LAW 9000
ARJUN MODI
RESEARCH PAPER
10th MAY, 2012
CASE: CHEVRON V. ECHAZABAL
CASE ISSUE: AN INTORDUCTION (CHEVRON V, ECHAZABAL)
Mario Echazabal, worked as an independent contractor at a Chevron oil refinery in California. He applied for a job at Chevron. The company extended an offer to him provided, he take pass the medical examination. However, Echazabal failed the examination because the results showed that his liver was damaged due to Hepatitis C. Chevron feared that continued exposure to the toxins at the plant, may worsen Mr. Echazabal's condition. Hence, it denied employment to Echazabal. Upon Chevron's request to reassign Mr. Echazabal in order to reduce
…show more content…
It stated that since the Defenses statute only includes the threat posed by an employee to others in the workplace and not to himself, Echazabal had a stronger case.
4. Exceptions in terms of Other Cases: LaChance v. Duffy's Draft House. (http://www.garlands-digest.com/cases/11th/1990s/98/110798la.html).This was a case in which the 11th Circuit Court ruled in favor of Duffy's Draft House stating the Mr. Lachance's epilepsy was a direct threat to himself and others in the workplace.
5. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA): This act was used by Chevron, in the Supreme Court to make its case stronger. The act states the following
To assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women; by authorizing enforcement of the standards developed under the Act; by assisting and encouraging the States in their efforts to assure safe and healthful working conditions; by providing for research, information, education, and training in the field of occupational safety and health; and for other purposes. (http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=OSHACT&p_id=3355).
Relation to the Case: In its argument, Chevron stated that it did not want to violate the OSHA act of 1970 by hiring Mr. Echazabal.
STRATEGIC CHOICES:
HOLDING: Chevron appealed to the Supreme Court
The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Employers, employees and the self-employed have a duty to protect, so far as is reasonably practicable, those at work who may be affected by work activity.
The Occupational Health & Safety Act was introduced in 1979 and provides organizations with a legal framework to deal with workplace health and safety issues. The Act deals with the rights and responsibilities of work parties, and provides services to assist organizations in maintaining health standards to prevent workplace accidents. Under this act, the government also conducts research studies, gathers statistics on occupational accidents, and develops educational programs to encourage occupational health and safety.
An Act to make further provision for securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work, for protecting others against risks to health or safety in connection with the activities of persons at work, for controlling the keeping and use and preventing the unlawful acquisition, possession and use of dangerous substances, and for controlling certain emissions into the atmosphere; to make further provision with respect to the employment medical advisory service; to amend the law relating to building regulations.
This case is followed by the laws and regulations of OSHA. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act) is an organization that has been put into place to ensure the safety of employees while on their jobs. These regulations are put into place to help reduce the number of on the job injuries and deaths.
Francin filed suit under the Missouri Human Rights act, pertaining to the violation of section 213.070. The court sided with Elsevier citing there were no real material facts presented to decide whether or not her wife's condition contributed to him being fired. Summary judgment was granted to Elsevier. Francin appealed saying the court made a mistake.
R. Williams Construction Company v. OSHRC is a case regarding the rules and regulations of OSHA verse the practices of a construction company. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act) is a government regulated organization that was created to ensure the safety of employees while on the job. The regulations of OSHA have been put in place to eliminate and/or reduce the number of on the job injuries and deaths. Therefore, legal issue of this case is whether or not the courts should hold the construction company responsible for specific violations of OSHA standard regulations. Yet, in the case of Williams Construction the company was put under investigation by OSHA after a trench
The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 is the primary piece of legislation covering occupational health and safety. Under this Act, the employer, the workers and the individuals being supported have responsibilities to ensure safety is maintained in the workplace. Your employer should display a copy of this Act on their main premises.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), often referred to as the "OSH Act," was enacted in 1970 by President Richard M. Nixon. Its purpose is to assure safe and healthful working conditions for men and women (EPA, 2006). The Act is administered and enforced at the national level by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, a division of the US Department of Labor. The application of the OSH Act in the current employment climate will be discussed as it applies to a variety of industries; considerations that are most applicable to the specific type of industry will be discussed initially, and those that are equally important regardless of the type of business will complete the section. Finally, this paper will discuss how the
Employment discrimination cases require the plaintiff to prove that the employer intentionally discriminated on a prohibited basis, such as race, sex, or religion. Using the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green case of 1973, the first step is the person alleging must establish a prima facie case; Secondly, the employer must articulate that a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason exists for the rejection of the challenger; and third, the plaintiff must prove that the organization's reason for their rejection is a pretext for discrimination.
The relevant law used by the court to determine the outcome of the case was the “"bona fide occupational qualification" exception of § 703(e),
The OSH Act of 1970 came about following a congressional finding that personal injuries and illnesses arising out of work situations impose a “substantial burden upon, and are a hindrance to, interstate commerce in terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and disability compensation payments”. Congress declared it to be within its rights, by virtue of its power to regulate commerce, to assure all people safe and healthy working conditions and to preserve human resources.
It is alarming to know that each year there are over 4,500 scaffold injuries and 65 deaths (Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], 2016). In addition, there is a high risk for construction workers to be struck from objects falling off scaffolds. With these facts in mind, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission’s (OSHRC) 2013 case of the Secretary of Labor v Performance Contracting, Inc. (PCI) raises questions as to why violations of OSHA’s scaffold standards are sometimes considered “other-than serious.” Understanding that OSHA gives the Secretary of Labor the tasks of rulemaking and enforcement of its rules, it also gives the task of carrying out the legal process to the commission which both parties accepted, as well as PCI “engaging as a business affecting interstate commerce” (Secretary of Labor v. PCI, 2013, pp. 2-3). Knowledge of the case’s background, parties involved, arguments presented, cases used to reach a verdict, and final ruling provide insight to the penalties assessed, significance, and personal opinion.
OSHA regulates the “general industry”, therefore the industry has to comply with OSHA standards. However, OSHA does exclude agriculture, construction, and maritime businesses. OSHA also does not cover self-employed businesses, or businesses with less than 10 employees (family members don’t count).The purpose of OSHA is to: “Assure the safety and health of workers at the workplace, wherever that may be.” They enforce standards by providing training, outreach, education, and assistance. OSHA also provides employees with training as well as gives them the right to requesting a inspection of their workplace environmentPresident Nixon and Congress helped create the OSHA Act of 1970 and it was later established in 1971. One who brought OSHA into
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) was developed and approved because of the escalating costs of accidents and illnesses in the workplace. According to Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, and Cardy (2010), OSHA is a national law that requires organizations to offer a safe and healthy workplace, to conform with particular occupational and health standards, and to document job-related injuries and diseases.
President Richard Nixon signed into law the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, which caused a robust of debates, before the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act became effective on April 28, 1971. In the same year a report revealed there had been approximately 14,000, occupational fatalities, 2.5 million job-related disabilities and 300,000 new cause of job-related illness (OSHA History). In addition, to the millions of employees suffering from workplace injuries, the employers were taking a financial hit from paying out more than $53 billion a year in worker’s compensation claims, indirect cost to the employee, and production lost (All About OSHA).