z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Workers’ Liberty, Workers’ Welfare: The Supreme Court Speaks on the Rights of Disabled Employees
Author(s) -
Ronald Bayer
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
american journal of public health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.284
H-Index - 264
eISSN - 1541-0048
pISSN - 0090-0036
DOI - 10.2105/ajph.93.4.540
Subject(s) - supreme court , law , paternalism , welfare , political science , supreme court decisions
On June 10, 2002, a unanimous US Supreme Court rejected the claim by Mario Echazabal that he had been denied his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act when Chevron USA had refused to employ him because he had hepatitis C. Chevron believed that Echazabal's exposure to hepatotoxic chemicals in its refinery would pose a grave risk to his health. This case poses critical questions about the ethics of public health: When, if ever, is paternalism justified? Must choice always trump other values? What ought to be the balance between welfare and liberty? Strikingly, the groups that came to Echazabal's defense adopted an antipaternalistic posture fundamentally at odds with the ethical foundations of occupational health and safety policy.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here