Skip to page content
Selected Presentations
Publications Home
CSUN Conference
Navigate Slides of This Session
Slides Index
Slides 1-10
Slides 11-20
Slides 21-30
Slides 31-44
Slides On This Page
- Bureau of Labor Statistics: Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities (2003)
- Bureau of Labor Statistics: Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities (2003)
- Research Goal
- Supreme Court Rulings: “ADA vs. Safety”
- “Direct Threat” (ADA)
- Supreme Court Case: Albertson’s v. Kirkingburg (1999)
- Supreme Court Case: EEOC v. Murray (2001)
- Supreme Court Case: Echazabal v. Chevron (2002)
- ummary: “ADA vs. Safety”
- Regulating Safety and Health
Bureau of Labor Statistics: Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities (2003)
Bureau of Labor Statistics: Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities (2003)
Slide shows a table listing Incidence Rate of Injury or Illness (number of cases per 100 full-time workers) and Total Fatalities for several job groupings (taken from North American Industry Classification System -- United States 2002
- Manufacturing: 6.8 incidence rate; 420 fatalities
- Professional & Business Services: 2.5 incidence rate; 453 fatalities
- Administration & Support (includes security, janitorial and landscapings services) and Waste Management & Remediation (includes both solid and hazardous waste collection and disposal): 4.0 incidence rate; 356 fatalities
- Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (includes accountants, lawyers, researchers, computer programmers, consulting services, etc.): 1.3 incidence rate; 97 fatalities
Notes: Manufacturing has nearly 3 times more incidents than Professional and Business services. Omitting Administration and Support, it has closer to 5 times more incidents than professional, scientific, and technical. Given these increased safety concerns, we not only have to be more careful in developing access to the manufacturing environment, we also have to be aware of the safety regulations that apply to its employers
Research Goal
Review current safety and health regulations to identify potential barriers to employment of people with disabilities in manufacturing.
Supreme Court Rulings: “ADA vs. Safety”
“Direct Threat” (ADA)
- The ADA permits employers to establish qualification standards that will exclude individuals who pose a direct threat to others.
- The term direct threat means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.
Source: Americans with Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. 12111(3)
Notes: The direct threat test includes (1) the duration of the risk, (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm, (3) the likelihood that the potential harm will occur, and (4) the imminence of the potential harm.
Supreme Court Case: Albertson’s v. Kirkingburg (1999)
- Truck driver fired for failing to meet minimum Federal DOT vision standards
- Court found in favor of company and stated: “Federal laws such as DOT's visual acuity standards might be critical in determining whether a plaintiff is a ‘qualified individual with a disability’ for ADA purposes.”
Supreme Court Case: EEOC v. Murray (2001)
- Forklift Operator fired because he was diagnosed with insulin-dependant diabetes.
- Company’s position: obligated by safety regulations to eliminate the potential hazard
- Court’s position: “direct threat” must be proven for the individual not merely on the medical diagnosis
Notes: Employee had worked for the company for over 20 years and had been an insulin-dependant diabetic for about as long. Driven by concerns with violating the General Duty Clause (which will be explained later), the Company instituted a policy that anyone with insulin dependent diabetes could not operate a forklift, for fear they would black out if they didn’t monitor their blood sugar properly. Court upheld the fact that the company could not apply that policy based on medical diagnosis alone but would have to show that the individual was known to suffer blackouts and therefore would be a “direct threat.”
Supreme Court Case: Echazabal v. Chevron (2002)
- Oil refinery worker laid off due to liver abnormalities that might be aggravated by exposure to refinery toxins
- Company’s position: worker poses a direct threat to “himself”
- Court’s position: the ADA “Direct Threat” clause can apply to the individual with a disability as well as to fellow employees
Summary: “ADA vs. Safety”
- Federal safety requirements can be used to establish employee qualifications
- “Direct Threat” defense must be shown for the individual not the diagnosis
- “Direct Threat” defense may apply to safety of the individual as well as others
Notes: In summary…
- The employee must be able to do the job safely.
- There is some evidence of confusion on the part of the employer related to employee abilities.
- Employer has the ability to deny employment on the basis that the individual may harm himself.
Regulating Safety and Health
Top of Page