Skip to page content
Workplace RERC


Selected Presentations

Publications Home

CSUN Conference

Navigate Slides of This Session

Slides Index Slides 1-10 Slides 11-20 Slides 21-30 Slides 31-44

Slides On This Page

  1. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities (2003)
  2. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities (2003)
  3. Research Goal
  4. Supreme Court Rulings: “ADA vs. Safety”
  5. “Direct Threat” (ADA)
  6. Supreme Court Case: Albertson’s v. Kirkingburg (1999)
  7. Supreme Court Case: EEOC v. Murray (2001)
  8. Supreme Court Case: Echazabal v. Chevron (2002)
  9. ummary: “ADA vs. Safety”
  10. Regulating Safety and Health

Slide 11 of 44

Bureau of Labor Statistics: Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities (2003)


Slide 12 of 44

Bureau of Labor Statistics: Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities (2003)

Slide shows a table listing Incidence Rate of Injury or Illness (number of cases per 100 full-time workers) and Total Fatalities for several job groupings (taken from North American Industry Classification System -- United States 2002 Notes: Manufacturing has nearly 3 times more incidents than Professional and Business services. Omitting Administration and Support, it has closer to 5 times more incidents than professional, scientific, and technical. Given these increased safety concerns, we not only have to be more careful in developing access to the manufacturing environment, we also have to be aware of the safety regulations that apply to its employers


Slide 13 of 44

Research Goal

Review current safety and health regulations to identify potential barriers to employment of people with disabilities in manufacturing.


Slide 14 of 44

Supreme Court Rulings: “ADA vs. Safety”


Slide 15 of 44

“Direct Threat” (ADA)

Source: Americans with Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. 12111(3)
Notes: The direct threat test includes (1) the duration of the risk, (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm, (3) the likelihood that the potential harm will occur, and (4) the imminence of the potential harm.


Slide 16 of 44

Supreme Court Case: Albertson’s v. Kirkingburg (1999)


Slide 17 of 44

Supreme Court Case: EEOC v. Murray (2001)

Notes: Employee had worked for the company for over 20 years and had been an insulin-dependant diabetic for about as long. Driven by concerns with violating the General Duty Clause (which will be explained later), the Company instituted a policy that anyone with insulin dependent diabetes could not operate a forklift, for fear they would black out if they didn’t monitor their blood sugar properly. Court upheld the fact that the company could not apply that policy based on medical diagnosis alone but would have to show that the individual was known to suffer blackouts and therefore would be a “direct threat.”


Slide 18 of 44

Supreme Court Case: Echazabal v. Chevron (2002)


Slide 19 of 44

Summary: “ADA vs. Safety”

Notes: In summary…
  1. The employee must be able to do the job safely.
  2. There is some evidence of confusion on the part of the employer related to employee abilities.
  3. Employer has the ability to deny employment on the basis that the individual may harm himself.

Slide 20 of 44

Regulating Safety and Health



Top of Page