Chevron v Echazabal: Protection, opportunity, and paternalism

N. Daniels

American Journal of Public Health, 2003, vol. 93, issue 4, 545-548

Abstract: The Supreme Court, in Chevron v Echazabal, ruled that risks to a disabled worker, if established by an individualized medical assessment, can disqualify the worker from protections offered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This decision rejected the antipaternalist position of ADA advocates that workers with disabilities should be able to determine, through their own consent, the risks they will take. Such strong antipaternalism may not be compatible with the underlying justification for the protection of workers against health hazards. Stringent regulation of workplace hazards involves restricting the scope of consent to risk. Resolution of this conflict will depend on more careful examination of the degree to which individualized medical assessments avoid stereotyping and bias.

Date: 2003
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:2003:93:4:545-548_6

Access Statistics for this article

American Journal of Public Health is currently edited by Alfredo Morabia

More articles in American Journal of Public Health from American Public Health Association
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Christopher F Baum ().