Hot Buttons: Talk show topics

DISABLED WORKERS

Does the Americans with Disabilities Act force employers to hire disabled workers for a job, even when the position could cause injury or death to the worker?

A lower court has said yes, but the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument Wednesday on the issue and will make the final decision.

The ADA covers all workplaces with 15 or more employees. In general, it bans discrimination against the disabled and tells employers they must make a reasonable attempt to accommodate the disabled. One ADA provision says employers may refuse to hire a disabled worker when there is a "direct threat," and defines that threat as "a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation."

The case that led to Wednesday's Supreme Court argument involves Mario Echazabal, who was employed by an independent contractor to work at the Chevron refinery in El Segundo, Calif.

Twice, Echazabal tried to be employed directly by Chevron, and twice the company approved his employment on the condition he pass a physical exam. The first time, doctors found a liver abnormality and concluded that exposure to toxic fumes at the refinery would exacerbate it. The second time, doctors found he had significant liver damage, and that exposure to the chemicals at Chevron could harm or kill him, according to court records. Each time, the employment offer was then rescinded.

Echazabal sued Chevron, saying the company had violated the ADA when it withdrew its 1995 work offer.

A federal judge ruled for the company, saying under the ADA, an employer may refuse to hire someone when the job would be a threat to the potential employee's health. But a federal appeals court reversed. The judges' panel ruled 2-1 that the ADA allows an employer not to hire someone when that person's disability is a "direct threat" to another worker, but does not allow an employer to refuse a job to someone whose own health would be threatened.

Chevron then asked the Supreme Court for review.

The Bush administration supports Chevron. Lisa Blatt, assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, told the justices that employers have an interest in keeping their employees from being hurt or killed.

Cambridge, Mass., attorney Samuel Bagenstos argued for Echazabal. The language of the statute makes it plain that an employer is allowed to refuse a job to a disabled worker when the worker's employment would pose "a direct threat" to others, he said. It did not allow such a refusal when the danger is to the disabled worker alone, he contended.

Justice John Paul Stevens asked Bagenstos whether he was arguing that disabled employees have the right to take the risk, even at their peril.

"I think they have the same right as people who don't have disabilities," Bagenstos said. " ... The real issue is whether the employer or the employee gets to make that decision ... We believe that Congress" in the language of the ADA "left that decision firmly in the hands of the employee."

-- Do you agree? Why or why not?

(Thanks to UPI Legal Correspondent Michael Kirkland in Washington)

WELFARE REFORM

President Bush went to Charlotte, N.C., Wednesday to tout his proposed changes to the nation's welfare laws -- telling an audience that its emphasis on work would lead recipients to financial independence and that its provisions for promoting marriage and helping couples in trouble would lead to increased family stability.

"The system ought to insist on work, but (also) encourage work by making sure people have the skills to work, or the help necessary, to make them a responsible person in the workplace," he said.

Under proposed revisions to 1996 welfare reform legislation, up for reauthorization, the current requirement for states that at least 50 percent of welfare families on its rolls are required to participate in work and other activities designed to help them achieve self-sufficiency would be increased to 70 percent -- a 5 percent increase annually until fiscal year 2007. Special accommodations will continue for parents with babies or people with rehabilitation and work-training needs, but recipients will be required to work 40 hours per week in a job or program designed to help them achieve independence.

Bush's comments were made before the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, a participant in the Welfare to Work Partnership, a non-partisan, non-profit organization which has helped more than 1.1 million welfare recipients find jobs through member businesses and organizations.

Since welfare reform -- with a work provision -- was initiated in 1996, some 3 million welfare recipient families have moved off the rolls into work, the administration says. About 2 million families still receive government assistance, however.

Included in Bush's welfare reform proposals is funding for programs to encourage low-income families to marry -- thus helping cut down on the number of single-parent families -- counseling for families in trouble because of abuse, alcoholism and drug abuse, and money for programs to encourage teen abstinence from premarital sex.

"Abstinence works every time," he said as the audience burst into laughter. "We ought to give our children the benefit of the doubt" and not just assume they could not follow it.

-- Should the government be promoting marriage? Why or why not?

POLLS, WE GOT POLLS

A Gallup poll finds that by a 2-to-1 margin, residents in nine Muslim countries have a bad opinion of the United States.

Only 23 percent had a "favorable" opinion of the United States, while 53 percent had an "unfavorable" opinion, according to the survey.

Perhaps even more striking is that an overwhelming majority of the people surveyed by Gallup believe Arab groups did not carry out Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. There was no question in the poll to find out whom respondents believe committed the attacks.

Although 67 percent of Muslims surveyed said Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were not justified, 77 percent said U.S. military action in Afghanistan was also "morally unjustifiable."

Gallup surveyed 9,924 people in December and January to compile the information. Included in the respondents were adults from Indonesia, Morocco, Pakistan, Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon and Turkey.

-- What do you think?