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?