This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Samuel Bagenstos is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
I am not a lawyer but I believe the following description of Chevron v. Echazabal, given in the page, is incorrect: "the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs argument that he should be the one to decide if chemicals in the workplace posed too much risk to his health, given that he had hepatitis". I find the case confusing so I'm not going to fix the summary myself, but if someone with better knowledge of disability law could look into it that would be great. Asacarny (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with the comment that the case is confusing, but would consider the summary as incomplete, rather than inaccurate. The Court unanimously held that the chemicals posed a "direct threat," barring recovery for employment discrimination. In doing so, the Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the direct threat would need to be to others.XFLQR (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
