Skip to page content
State of the Science Conference
September 15-16, 2005
Conference
Home
Safety Regulations: Barriers to Employment in a Manufacturing Environment
Navigate Slides of This Session
Slides Index
Slides 1-14
Slides 15-27
Slides On This Page
- General Duty Clause
- Recognized Hazard
- 1997 OSHA Policy Memo
- 1997 OSHA Policy Memo (cont.)
- Court Cases
- Direct Threat
- Echazabal v. Chevron (2002)
- EEOC v. Murray (2001)
- Albertson's v. Kirkingburg (1999)
- Opportunities for Future Work
- In Summary
- Future Development
- Acknowledgements
General Duty Clause
Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act (known as the “General Duty Clause”)
requires an employer to furnish to its employees:
"employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards
that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his
employees..."
Recognized Hazard
Employer’s industry recognizes it as a hazard
Employer recognizes it as a hazard
Any reasonable person would recognize it as a hazard (termed “Common
Sense Recognition”)
1997 OSHA Policy Memo Regarding Workers with Disabilities
[OSHA] strive[s] for working conditions which will safeguard the safety and
health of all workers, including those with special needs and limitations.
1997 OSHA Policy Memo Regarding Workers with Disabilities (cont.)
If an employee can perform their job functions in a manner which does not
pose a safety hazard to themselves or others, the fact they have a disability
is irrelevant.
OSHA memorandum to Area Directors and District Supervisors – 08/27/1997
Court Cases
ADA v. OSHA in the Courts
Three Supreme Court Cases
Direct Threat
Another Key Term:
Direct Threat (ADA)
The term direct threat means a significant risk to the health or safety of others
that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.
Americans with Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. 12111(3)
Echazabal v. Chevron (2002)
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 disability as well as to fellow employees
EEOC v. Murray (2001)
Supreme Court Case:
EEOC v. Murray (2001)
Forklift Operator fired because he was diagnosed with insulin-dependant
diabetes.
Company’s position: obligated under GDC to eliminate the potential hazard
Court’s position: “direct threat” must be proven for the individual
not merely on the medical diagnosis
Albertson’s v. Kirkingburg (1999)
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.”
Opportunities for Future Work
Opportunities for Future Work
Proposed Development Efforts
In Summary
Increased job opportunities and safety concerns in manufacturing environment
Employer has responsibility to ensure a safe work environment for employees
Courts are helping to define the boundaries between ADA and OSHA
Future Development
Training materials to help VR professionals understand OSHA, et al.
Assessment tools to help manufacturing employers understand functional
abilities
Investigate safety issues specific to CNC
Assist with safety standard development
Compile information about relevant court cases
Acknowledgements
Thank you for your attention
www.workrerc.org
Supported by grant #H133E020720
from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR),
U.S. Department of Education
Top of Page