October Term 2001 · Docket 00-1406

Can employers exclude disabled workers to protect themselves?

Chevron argues it must exclude a worker with hepatitis C to protect others. Echazabal claims the ADA bans such exclusions.

Official caption
Chevron U. S. A., Inc. v. Echazabal
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Shapiro argued safety is a basic business necessity.

    Mr. Bagenstos argued the ADA targets such exclusions.

    Ms. Blatt explained the statute's two-step process.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Echazabal

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 27, 2002.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Chevron wants to exclude disabled workers to protect others.

Echazabal wants to keep his job despite his condition.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Chevron argues safety is a basic business necessity.

Echazabal argues the ADA targets such exclusions.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Does the ADA allow exclusions for self-defense?

How does the statute define qualified individuals?

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

Employers face a choice between safety and inclusion. Workers with disabilities face job exclusion risks. This balance affects workplace policies nationwide.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON