REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
On this appeal, the principal question we consider is whether the “direct threat” defense available to employers under the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to employees, or prospective employees, who pose a direct threat to their own health or safety, but not to the health or safety of other persons in the workplace. We conclude that it does not.
I.
Mario Echazabal first began working at Chevron’s oil refinery in El Segundo, California in 1972. Employed by various maintenance contractors, he worked at the refinery, primarily in the coker unit, nearly continuously until 1996, when the events that gave rise to this litigation occurred.
In 1992, Echazabal applied to work directly for Chevron at the same coker unit location. After determining that he was qualified for the job, Chevron extended him an offer contingent on his passing a physical examination. A preemployment physical examination conducted by Chevron’s regional physician revealed that Echazabal’s liver was releasing certain enzymes at a higher than normal level. Based on these results, Chevron concluded that Echazabal’s fiver might be damaged by exposure to the solvents and chemicals present in the coker unit. For that reason, Chevron rescinded its job offer. Nevertheless, Echazabal continued to work for Irwin, a maintenance contractor, throughout the refinery — including at the coker unit. Chevron made no effort to have him removed from his assignment.
After learning of the enzyme test results, Echazabal consulted with several doctors and eventually was diagnosed with asymptomatic, chronic active hepatitis C. Throughout his treatment, Echazabal told each physician who treated him about the type of work that he did. In addition, at least one of his physicians was provided with a document that detailed the specific environmental hazards present in the vicinity of the coker unit at the refinery. None of these physicians advised Echaza-bal that he should stop working at the refinery because of his medical condition.
In 1995, Echazabal again applied to Chevron for a position at the coker unit. As it had done before, Chevron made Echazabal a job offer that was contingent
upon his passing a physical examination. Once again, Chevron eventually rescinded its job offer on the ground that there was a risk that Echazabal’s liver would be damaged if he worked at the coker unit. Unlike in 1992, however, Chevron did not simply allow Echazabal to continue working for Irwin at the refinery. Instead, Chevron wrote Irwin and asked that it “immediately remove Mr. Echazabal from [the] refinery or place him in a position that eliminates his exposure to solvents/chemicals.” As a result, Echazabal was no longer permitted to work at the Chevron refinery.
Immediately after losing his position at the refinery, Echazabal filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He subsequently filed a complaint in state court that alleged, among other things, that both Chevron and the maintenance contractor had discriminated against him on the basis of a disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After Chevron removed the action to federal court, the district court granted Chevron’s motion for summary judgment on all of Eeha-zabal’s claims. The court then stayed the proceedings between Echazabal and the maintenance contractor (it had denied the contractor’s summary judgment motion) and certified for appeal its grant of summary judgment in favor of Chevron.
II.
On appeal, Chevron argues that it may defend its decision not to hire Echazabal on the ground that it reasonably concluded that Echazabal would pose a direct threat to his own health if he worked at the refinery. It acknowledges that, with respect to “otherwise qualified” individuals, the ADA prohibits employers from “using qualification standards ... that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6) (1994);
see also
42 U.S.C. § 12113(a). Chevron contends, however, that its refusal to hire Echazabal falls under an affirmative defense that the ADA provides to this charge of discrimination. In the “defenses” section of the Act, the statute provides that an employer may impose, as a “qualification standard,” “a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of
other individuals
in the workplace.” 42 U.S.C. § 12113 (emphasis added).
The question before us is whether the “direct threat” defense includes threats to one’s own health or safety. That is, we must decide whether the provision permits employers to refuse to hire an applicant on
the ground that the individual, while posing no threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace, poses a direct threat to his own health or safety. As we noted recently in
Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
164 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir.1999), “[w]e have not yet ruled on whether the direct threat defense includes threats to one’s self.”
Id.
at 1247 n. 1. In addition to being a question of first impression in this Circuit, the issue has received almost no treatment in other Circuits. While several cases do state, in passing dicta, that the direct threat defense includes threats to oneself,
see LaChance v. Duffy’s Draft House, Inc.,
146 F.3d 832 (11th Cir.1998);
EEOC v. Amego, Inc.,
110 F.3d 135 (1st Cir.1997);
Daugherty v. City of El Paso,
56 F.3d 695 (5th Cir.1995), only the Eleventh Circuit appears to have held that the defense encompasses such threats.
See Moses v. American Nonwovens, Inc.,
97 F.3d 446, 447 (11th Cir.1996). The
Moses
court provides us with no guidance, however, because it gives no explanation for its holding. Instead, it simply asserts, without analysis, that the ADA’s direct threat defense applies to threats to the disabled individual himself.
In order to resolve the scope of the direct threat defense, we turn first to the language of provision itself. Here, that language is dispositive.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
On this appeal, the principal question we consider is whether the “direct threat” defense available to employers under the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to employees, or prospective employees, who pose a direct threat to their own health or safety, but not to the health or safety of other persons in the workplace. We conclude that it does not.
I.
Mario Echazabal first began working at Chevron’s oil refinery in El Segundo, California in 1972. Employed by various maintenance contractors, he worked at the refinery, primarily in the coker unit, nearly continuously until 1996, when the events that gave rise to this litigation occurred.
In 1992, Echazabal applied to work directly for Chevron at the same coker unit location. After determining that he was qualified for the job, Chevron extended him an offer contingent on his passing a physical examination. A preemployment physical examination conducted by Chevron’s regional physician revealed that Echazabal’s liver was releasing certain enzymes at a higher than normal level. Based on these results, Chevron concluded that Echazabal’s fiver might be damaged by exposure to the solvents and chemicals present in the coker unit. For that reason, Chevron rescinded its job offer. Nevertheless, Echazabal continued to work for Irwin, a maintenance contractor, throughout the refinery — including at the coker unit. Chevron made no effort to have him removed from his assignment.
After learning of the enzyme test results, Echazabal consulted with several doctors and eventually was diagnosed with asymptomatic, chronic active hepatitis C. Throughout his treatment, Echazabal told each physician who treated him about the type of work that he did. In addition, at least one of his physicians was provided with a document that detailed the specific environmental hazards present in the vicinity of the coker unit at the refinery. None of these physicians advised Echaza-bal that he should stop working at the refinery because of his medical condition.
In 1995, Echazabal again applied to Chevron for a position at the coker unit. As it had done before, Chevron made Echazabal a job offer that was contingent
upon his passing a physical examination. Once again, Chevron eventually rescinded its job offer on the ground that there was a risk that Echazabal’s liver would be damaged if he worked at the coker unit. Unlike in 1992, however, Chevron did not simply allow Echazabal to continue working for Irwin at the refinery. Instead, Chevron wrote Irwin and asked that it “immediately remove Mr. Echazabal from [the] refinery or place him in a position that eliminates his exposure to solvents/chemicals.” As a result, Echazabal was no longer permitted to work at the Chevron refinery.
Immediately after losing his position at the refinery, Echazabal filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He subsequently filed a complaint in state court that alleged, among other things, that both Chevron and the maintenance contractor had discriminated against him on the basis of a disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After Chevron removed the action to federal court, the district court granted Chevron’s motion for summary judgment on all of Eeha-zabal’s claims. The court then stayed the proceedings between Echazabal and the maintenance contractor (it had denied the contractor’s summary judgment motion) and certified for appeal its grant of summary judgment in favor of Chevron.
II.
On appeal, Chevron argues that it may defend its decision not to hire Echazabal on the ground that it reasonably concluded that Echazabal would pose a direct threat to his own health if he worked at the refinery. It acknowledges that, with respect to “otherwise qualified” individuals, the ADA prohibits employers from “using qualification standards ... that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6) (1994);
see also
42 U.S.C. § 12113(a). Chevron contends, however, that its refusal to hire Echazabal falls under an affirmative defense that the ADA provides to this charge of discrimination. In the “defenses” section of the Act, the statute provides that an employer may impose, as a “qualification standard,” “a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of
other individuals
in the workplace.” 42 U.S.C. § 12113 (emphasis added).
The question before us is whether the “direct threat” defense includes threats to one’s own health or safety. That is, we must decide whether the provision permits employers to refuse to hire an applicant on
the ground that the individual, while posing no threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace, poses a direct threat to his own health or safety. As we noted recently in
Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
164 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir.1999), “[w]e have not yet ruled on whether the direct threat defense includes threats to one’s self.”
Id.
at 1247 n. 1. In addition to being a question of first impression in this Circuit, the issue has received almost no treatment in other Circuits. While several cases do state, in passing dicta, that the direct threat defense includes threats to oneself,
see LaChance v. Duffy’s Draft House, Inc.,
146 F.3d 832 (11th Cir.1998);
EEOC v. Amego, Inc.,
110 F.3d 135 (1st Cir.1997);
Daugherty v. City of El Paso,
56 F.3d 695 (5th Cir.1995), only the Eleventh Circuit appears to have held that the defense encompasses such threats.
See Moses v. American Nonwovens, Inc.,
97 F.3d 446, 447 (11th Cir.1996). The
Moses
court provides us with no guidance, however, because it gives no explanation for its holding. Instead, it simply asserts, without analysis, that the ADA’s direct threat defense applies to threats to the disabled individual himself.
In order to resolve the scope of the direct threat defense, we turn first to the language of provision itself. Here, that language is dispositive. The direct threat defense permits employers to impose a “requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace.” On its face, the provision does not include direct threats to the health or safety of the disabled individual himself. Moreover, by specifying only threats to “other individuals in the workplace,” the statute makes it clear that threats to other persons — including the disabled individual himself— are not included within the scope of the defense.
Expressio unius est exclusio al-terius.
Finally, the obvious reading of the direct threat defense as not including threats to oneself is supported by the definitional section of Title I, which states that “[t]he term ‘direct threat’
means
a significant risk to the health or safety
of others
that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(3) (emphasis added). The fact that the statute consistently defines the direct threat defense to include only threats to others eliminates any possibility that Congress committed a drafting error when it omitted from the defense threats to the disabled individual himself.
Cf. United States Trustee v. Garvey, Schubert & Barer (In re Century Cleaning Servs., Inc.),
195 F.3d 1053, 1057-58 (9th Cir.1999). For these reasons, we conclude that the language
of
the direct threat defense plainly does not include threats to the disabled individual himself.
Although we need not rely on it, the legislative history of the ADA also supports the conclusion that the direct threat
provision does not include threats to oneself. The term “direct threat” is used hundreds of times throughout the ADA’s legislative history — in the final conference report, the various committee reports and hearings, and the floor debate.
See, e.g.,
H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 101-596, at 57, 60, 77, 84 (1990),
reprinted in
1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 565, 566, 569, 586, 593. In nearly every instance in which the term appears, it is accompanied by a reference to the threat to “others” or to “other individuals in the workplace.” Not once is the term accompanied by a reference to threats to the disabled person himself. In addition, both the Report of the House Judiciary in the Report of the Committee on Education and Labor explain that the direct threat provision is intended to codify the Supreme Court’s holding in
School Bd. of Nassau County v. Arline,
480 U.S. 273, 107 S.Ct. 1123, 94 L.Ed.2d 307 (1987) — a case that defines “[t]he term ‘direct threat’ [to] mean[ ] a significant risk to the health or safety
of others
that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.” H.R.Rep. No. 101-485, "pt. 3, at 34, 45-46 (1990) (emphasis added) (citing Arline),
reprinted in
1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 445, 457;
see also
H.R.Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2, at 76,
reprinted in
1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 303, 359. While the House Judiciary Report notes that the ADA extends the
Arline
standard “to all individuals with disabilities, and not simply to those with contagious diseases or infections,” H.R.Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 3, at 45,
reprinted in
1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 445, at 468, it says nothing about extending the standard to cover a disabled person whose employment would be harmful to himself as opposed to other individuals. Finally, the following statement made by Senator Kennedy, a co-sponsor of the ADA, also strongly bolsters our reading of the statute:
The ADA provides that a valid qualification standard is that a person not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace-that is, to other coworkers or customers.... It is important, however, that the ADA specifically refers to health and safety threats to others. Under the ADA, employers may not deny a person an employment opportunity based on paternalistic concerns regarding the person’s health. For example, an employer could not use as an excuse for not hiring a person with HIV disease the claim that the employer was simply “protecting the individual” from opportunistic diseases ■to which the individual might be exposed. That is a concern that should rightfully be dealt with by the individual, in consultation with his or her private physician.
136 Cong. Rec. S9684-03, at S9697 (1990).
In short, the legislative history convincingly supports the unambiguous wording of the direct threat defense.
Congress’s decision not to include threats to one’s own health or safety in the direct threat defense makes good sense in light of the principles that underlie the ADA in particular and federal employment discrimination law in general. As Senator Kennedy noted in the statement quoted
above, the ADA was designed in part to prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities that takes the form of paternalism. This goal is codified in the Act itself: in the “Findings” section of the ADA, Congress concluded that “overprotective rules and policies” are one form of discrimination confronting individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(5);
see also
H.R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2, at 74,
reprinted in
1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 303, 356 (noting that “[pjaternalism is perhaps the most pervasive form of discrimination for people with disabilities”).
More generally, courts have interpreted federal employment discrimination statutes to prohibit paternalistic employment policies. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Title VII in
Dothard v. Rawlinson,
433 U.S. 321, 97 S.Ct. 2720, 53 L.Ed.2d 786 (1977), and
International Union, United Auto. Aerospace & Agrie. Implement Workers of Am., UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc.,
499 U.S. 187, 111 S.Ct. 1196, 113 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991), provides a good example of this principle. In
Dothard,
the Court stated that “[i]n the usual case, the argument that a particular job is too dangerous for women may appropriately be met by the rejoinder that it is the purpose of Title VII to allow the individual woman to make that choice for herself.” 433 U.S. at 335, 97 S.Ct. 2720. While the Court permitted the employer in that case to hire only male guards in contact areas of maximum security male penitentiaries, it did so only because more was at stake than the “individual woman’s decision to weigh and accept the risks of employment.”
Id.
Sex was a bona fide occupational qualification, the Court concluded, because the employment of a female guard would, due to the guard’s sex, create a real threat to the safety to
others
if violence broke out.
See id.
at 336, 97 S.Ct. 2720. In
Johnson Controls,
the Court reiterated “that danger to a woman herself does not justify discrimination.” 499 U.S. at 202, 111 S.Ct. 1196 (citing
Dothard).
The court there held that the threats of lead exposure to female employees’ own reproductive health did not justify the employer’s decision to exclude women from certain positions at a battery manufacturing plant.
See id.
at 206-07, 111 S.Ct. 1196. Given Congress’s decision in the Title VII context to allow all individuals to decide for themselves whether to put their own health and safety at risk, it should come as no surprise that it would enact legislation allowing the same freedom of choice to disabled individuals.
Chevron makes two arguments as to why the direct threat provision should not be given its plain meaning. First, Chevron argues that we should defer to the EEOC’s contrary interpretation of the ADA. The implementing regulations of Title I of the ADA promulgated by the EEOC do, as Chevron contends, state that an employer may assert a “direct threat” defense with respect to individuals who pose a threat only to their own health or safety.
See
29 C.F.R. § 1630.15(b)(2) (1999) (“The term ‘qualification standard’ may include a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of
the individual
or others in the workplace.” (emphasis added)); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). Our determination whether a particular regulatory provision is valid begins with an inquiry into whether we must defer to the agency’s construction, and if so, what level of deference the agency interpretation is owed. In the present case, we need not determine what level of deference Title I regulations are due, because we would reject the EEOC’s regulatory interpretation of the statutory “direct threat” provision even were we to conclude that
Chevron
deference is appropriate.
Under
Chevron,
“[i]f the intent of
Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,
467 U.S. 837, 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984);
see also Zimmerman v. Oregon Dep’t of Justice,
170 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir.1999). As we concluded above, the intent of Congress is clear: the language of the direct threat defense plainly expresses Congress’s intent to include within the scope of a § 12113 defense only threats to other individuals in the workplace. Accordingly, we reject the EEOC’s contrary interpretation.
Second, Chevron suggests that we must ignore Congress’s clear intent because forcing employers to hire individuals who pose a risk to their own health or safety would expose employers to tort liability. Because Chevron has not argued that it faces any costs from tort liability, this question is not properly before us.
See Johnson Controls,
499 U.S. at 210, 111 S.Ct. 1196. Nevertheless, we should note that, in
Johnson Controls,
the Supreme Court strongly suggested that state tort law would be preempted to the extent that it interfered with federal antidiscrimination law. The Court stated that “we have not hesitated to abrogate state law where satisfied that its enforcement would stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes . and objectives of Congress.”
Johnson Controls,
499 U.S. at 209-10, 111 S.Ct. 1196 (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, given that the ADA prohibits employers from refusing to hire individuals solely on the ground that their health or safety may be threatened by the job, state tort law would likely be preempted if it interfered with this requirement. Moreover, we note that Chevron’s concern over an award of damages reflects a fear that hiring a disabled individual will cost more than hiring an individual without any disabilities. The extra cost of employing disabled individuals does not in itself provide an affirmative defense to a discriminatory refusal to hire those individuals.
See, e.g.,
42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) (requiring employers to accommodate disabled individuals, even when those accommodations impose additional costs, unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodations “would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business”).
In short, the plain language of the direct threat provision is dispositive: Section 12113 does not afford a defense on the basis that the performance of a job would pose a direct threat to an employee’s (or prospective employee’s) own health or safety.
See
42 U.S.C. § 12113.
III.
Chevron next contends that, even if the direct threat provision does not provide it with a defense to its actions, it may defend its decision not to hire Echazabal on the ground that, because of the risk of damage to his liver, he is not “otherwise qualified” to perform the job at issue. Put simply, Chevron’s argument is that the § 12118 “direct threat” defense does not set forth the exclusive way in which it may defend its decision not to hire Echazabal because of the risk to his health.
We agree; of course, that the ADA does not require employers to hire individuals who are not “otherwise qualified.” Only a person who is a “qualified individual with a disability” is protected from discrimination under the ADA.
See
42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) (“No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual_”). According to the Act, the term “qualified individual with a disability” means:
[A]n individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the
essential functions
of the employment position that such individual holds or desires. For the purposes of this subchapter, consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential, and if an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job.
42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) (emphasis added).
We do not agree, however, with Chevron’s assertion on appeal that performing the work at the coker unit
mthout 'posing a threat to one’s own health or safety
is an “essential function” of the coker unit job. Chevron argues that it is an essential function because “the record establishes that Chevron did prepare a written description of the job before advertising it and it incorporated the need for an employee to be able to tolerate an environment including, among other things, hydrocarbon liquids and vapors, petroleum, solvents and oils.” According to Chevron, the “requirement” of the job description that an employee not be susceptible to harm from the chemicals is an “essential function” of the job simply because Chevron has chosen to describe it as such.
While we give consideration to an employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential,
see
42 U.S.C. § 12111(8), an employer may not turn every condition of employment which it elects to adopt into a job function, let alone an essential job function, merely by including it in a job description. Job functions are those acts or actions that constitute a part of the performance of the job. “The job” at the coker unit is to extract usable petroleum products from the crude oil that remains after other refining processes. The job functions of the “plant helper” position for which Echazabal applied consist of various actions that help keep the coker unit running. Chevron does nothing more than add a prohibited condition to these actual job functions when it asserts that the job functions at the coker unit consist of performing the actions that help keep the unit running
without posing a risk to oneself.
Were we to ignore the limits of the actual functions of the job at issue and permit Chevron to add to those functions any condition it chooses to impose in its written job description, the term “essential function” would be rendered meaningless.
Moreover, Chevron’s
reading of “essential functions” would, by definitional slight-of-hand, circumvent Congress’s decision to exclude a paternalistic risk-to-self-defense in circumstances in which an employee’s disability does not prevent him from performing the requisite work. Accordingly, we reject Chevron’s interpretation of what may constitute an “essential function” of a job.
Given that not posing a risk to one’s own health or safety cannot in itself ‘constitute an essential job function, it is clear that Chevron’s reason for refusing to hire Echazabal is not related to Echazabal’s ability to perform the essential functions of the job for which he applied.
Chevron has never contended that the risk Echaza-bal allegedly poses to his own health ren--ders him unable to perform those duties. Nor would we accept such an argument in this case were Chevron to make it. Echa-zabal worked for Irwin at the coker unit, performing work similar to the job for which' he applied, long after he was diagnosed with hepatitis. There is no evidence that the health of his liver ever affected his ability to do the job. Had Echazabal failed during that period to perform the essential functions of his work, we seriously-doubt that Chevron would have twice extended him contingent offers to work at the coker unit.
Accordingly, we hold that the risk that Echazabal’s employment might pose to his own health does not affect the question
whether he is a “qualified individual with a disability.”
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the ADA’s direct threat defense means what it says: it permits employers to impose a requirement that their employees not pose a significant risk to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace. It does not permit employers to shut disabled individuals out of jobs on the ground that, by working in the jobs at issue, they may put their own health or safety at risk. Conscious of the history of paternalistic rules that have often excluded disabled individuals from the workplace, Congress concluded that disabled persons should be afforded the opportunity to decide for themselves what risks to undertake. The district court’s grant of summary judgment to Chevron on Echazabal’s ADA claim is reversed.
REVERSED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.