Echazabal V. Chevron Case Summary
Summarize the relevant facts of the case. The relevant facts of Echazabal v. Chevron USA are as follows. Mr. Echnazabal had been working at Chevron USA refinery since 1972 till 1996 until the events presented in the case unfolded. He was employed by independent maintenance contractors for the refinery and worked in the coker unit of the refinery. In 1992, when a job opening was posted by Chevron in the same coker unit as that of where Mr. Echnazabal worked, he applied for the position to be directly hired by Chevron. As a part of their hiring protocol, when Chevron conducted pre-employment physical tests, it was found that Mr. Echnazabal 's certain liver enzymes were higher. Based on the recommendations from the medical person in charge, if Mr. Echnazabal continued working in the coker unit,
…show more content…
In this case, I would let Mr. Echazabal know of possible health effects from his current job position and would have allowed him to make a decision, in order to comply with ADA guidelines. However, to comply with safety regulations I would have requested Mr. Echazabal to sign a waiver against any legal or financial liabilities should he choose to continue working at the coker unit even after knowing the risks involved. Following above two steps would at least give the company to show that we followed the rules while decreasing the risks of future liabilities. To meet the safety regulations I would have also provide the equipments necessary to minimize the exposures the solvents and chemicals. In addition, another alternative would have been to give an option of moving to a different department so as he maintained his income and as a company Chevron continued his
In this case, I would let Mr. Echazabal know of possible health effects from his current job position and would have allowed him to make a decision, in order to comply with ADA guidelines. However, to comply with safety regulations I would have requested Mr. Echazabal to sign a waiver against any legal or financial liabilities should he choose to continue working at the coker unit even after knowing the risks involved. Following above two steps would at least give the company to show that we followed the rules while decreasing the risks of future liabilities. To meet the safety regulations I would have also provide the equipments necessary to minimize the exposures the solvents and chemicals. In addition, another alternative would have been to give an option of moving to a different department so as he maintained his income and as a company Chevron continued his