▁O pport unity ▁Commission ▁reg ulation , ▁which ▁allowed ▁an ▁employ er ▁to ▁refuse ▁to ▁h ire ▁an ▁applic ant ▁when ▁the ▁applic ant ' s ▁dis ability ▁on ▁the ▁job ▁would ▁pose ▁a ▁" direct ▁threat " ▁to ▁the ▁applic ant ' s ▁own ▁health . ▁ ▁Three ▁ 2 1 st - century ▁dec isions ▁of ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁may ▁limit ▁the ▁scope ▁of ▁administrative ▁ag ency ▁actions ▁that ▁receive ▁Che v ron ▁de ference ▁to ▁ag ency ▁dec isions ▁that ▁have ▁the ▁" force ▁of ▁law ". ▁This ▁new ▁doctrine ▁is ▁sometimes ▁referred ▁to ▁as ▁" Che v ron ▁step ▁zero ". ▁Thus , ▁for ▁example , ▁a ▁reg ulation ▁prom ul g ated ▁under ▁the ▁" not ice ▁and ▁comment " ▁prov isions ▁of ▁§ ▁ 5 5 3 ▁of ▁the ▁Administr ative ▁Pro cedure ▁Act ▁would ▁be ▁likely ▁to ▁receive ▁Che v ron ▁de ference , ▁but ▁a ▁letter ▁sent ▁by ▁an ▁ag ency , ▁such ▁as ▁a ▁US ▁Sec ur ities ▁and ▁Exchange ▁Commission ▁( SE C ) ▁" no - action " ▁letter , ▁would ▁not . ▁However , ▁an ▁ag ency ▁action ▁that ▁does ▁not ▁receive ▁Che v ron ▁de ference ▁may ▁still ▁receive ▁some ▁degree ▁of ▁de ference ▁under ▁the ▁old ▁standard ▁of ▁Sk id more ▁v . ▁Swift ▁& ▁Co ., ▁ 3 2 3 ▁U . S . ▁ 1 3 4 ▁( 1 9 4 4 ). ▁The ▁majority ▁in ▁Christ ensen ▁v . ▁Harris ▁County ▁( 2 0 0 0