This is regarding the case of Echazabal v. Chevron (available via Google search)
Address the following questions and issues:
- 1. Summarize the relevant facts of the case.
- 2. What are the central issues presented in the case that were decided by the court?
- 3. What laws were relied upon by the court in deciding the case?
- 4. What was the outcome of the case (Holding)?
- 5. Analysis – How did the majority of judges tie the facts, issues and laws presented in the case together to reach their holding in the case?
- 6. What law or laws did the dissent rely upon in reaching their decision in the case?
- 7. Do you agree, based upon the laws presented, with the position taken by the majority or the dissent in this case? Why?
- 8. Why do you think Echazabal was willing to risk his health to work in the coker unit? Assuming he had a complete grasp of the risk involved, was it ethical to allow him to work? For this, re-examine the ethical toolkit from Chapter 1.
- 9. From an ethical standpoint, how do you believe the case should have been decided? Why?
- 10. In this case, we see both the company and the employee between a rock and a hard place. Echazabal must choose to either further endanger his health, or lose a coveted opportunity. At the same time Chevron is caught between liability under the ADA, and liability based upon unsafe working conditions. Suppose you were a top manager inside Chevron responsible for workplace safety. What could be done to prevent, or minimize, this type of scenario from developing in the future?
Categories: