Get personal help with your studies from any of the 45,000 experienced experts on Studybay

  • No intermediaries
  • No plagiarism
  • Any Subject
  • Always on time

Here’s an example of project completed by our experts:

Echazabal Interpretation (Example)

Document Preview:

Name: Subject: Instructor: Date: Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal case Introduction In the Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal case Echazabal had sued his former employer for dismissing him on the bases of his physical health based on the EEOC's regulations. Echazabal was working in an oil refinery plant and the doctors felt that his continued stay at the plant would further harm his health. Echazabal protested the dismissal in the Trial Court where he lost the case. He proceeded to the Court of Appeal won the case but the decision was later reversed by the U.S Supreme Court (Klein 23). Facts Mario Echazabal was hired in an oil refinery company that was owned by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. from the start of the year 1972. A physical examination that conducted on Echazabal during the direct application of a job in the Chevron U.S.A. Inc. indicated that he was suffering from an employee if they feel that his presence in the workplace would pose a danger or harm to the other employees. He lost in the Trial Court moved to the Appellate Court where he won but the Supreme Court later reversed the decision. S.C used the “Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA)” to strengthen the EEOC's regulation which was silent on self-harm. Work Cited Dinerstein Robert. "Promises Kept Promises Broken Promises Deferred: The Americans with Disabilities Act." (2015). Gonzalez Jarod S. Employment discrimination: A context and practice casebook. Carolina Academic Press 2011. Klein Joyce M. "EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAW." (2017). Rothstein M. "Occupational health and discrimination issues raised by toxicogenomics in the workplace." Genomics and Environmental Regulation: Science Ethics and Law (2008): 183. US Supreme Court (October 2001). Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal 536 U.S. 73 (2002) US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. "Laws enforced by EEOC." (2013). [...]

Order Description:

The Echazabal cases deal first and foremost with the scope of the EEOC’s rulemaking authority, as delineated by the terms of the statute. Discuss the reasoning of each court in reaching the decision they did. Are you persuaded by them? Why or why not? (4 pages, double space, no extra spacing)

Subject Area: Politics

Document Type: Term paper

This project has already been completed by one of the Studybay experts. The client rated this project:

Project's rating is 5/5

Price $40

Words 1100

Pages 4

Completed in 6 days

Expert Jane N

Client Review

Excellent on time


Similar projects

Need Help With a Project on This or Another Topic?

Cooperate with seasoned experts directly — create your project now and start getting help in 2 minutes.

Money-Back Guarantee

Support 24/7

No Hidden Charges

Studybay top experts

Reviews from Studybay Community

  • Our Studybay rating is:
  • Our ReviewCentre rating is:
  • Our SiteJabber rating is: