Raytheon Fights Rehiring Of Ex-Employee Who Used Drugs

Dow Jones Business News ^ | Wednesday October 8, 2003 | Mark H. Anderson

[anymouse]

The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday pondered whether an employee fired for drug use can later, after rehabilitation, demand special rehiring preferences as a recovered addict under the Americans With Disabilities Act. The justices took up the issue in the case of Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 02- 749, which challenges employer drug-use guidelines in place at companies across the country. "This is a decision that has extraordinary implications for thousands of companies that have similar policies," said attorney Carter Phillips, who represented Raytheon at oral arguments.

Raytheon, based in Lexington, Mass., appealed to the Supreme Court over a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that said Joel Hernandez, a 25-year veteran at Raytheon's Hughes Aircraft unit, should get a trial over the company's refusal to rehire him. Hughes Aircraft was acquired by Raytheon after this case began.

The 9th Circuit decision, noting that the ADA bars discrimination against recovering substance-abuse addicts, said a former employee couldn't be denied a job based on a past record of drug use.

Hernandez was fired in 1991 after he tested positive for cocaine after showing up for work showing signs of substance abuse. He reapplied for his job in 1994, saying he had undergone rehabilitation and was in recovery.

Raytheon turned Hernandez down, citing an unwritten policy against rehiring employees who broke company rules. Hernandez sued under the ADA. A federal trial court judge ruled in favor of Raytheon, dismissing the case.

After the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, revived the Hernandez claim, Raytheon appealed to the Supreme Court.

At the oral argument, some Supreme Court justices voiced concern over the facts surrounding the case. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, asked questions about why the company's rehiring policy wasn't written down.

"The record is suspicious," Ginsburg said, on "whether there was a policy and, two, whether it was applied with an even hand."

Should the justices decide there are factual problems with the case, they could simply dismiss it and let the matter go to trial.

Phillips, however, urged the justices to go one step further and reverse the 9th Circuit decision, which created new precedent on the reach of the ADA. Justice Antonin Scalia indicated that is what he was inclined to do. And Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said she didn't see how Hernandez was covered by the disabilities law.

"He just doesn't fit the definition of disability in the statute," O'Connor said.

Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing for the U.S. government, agreed. Clement said it was legal under the ADA for a company to assert a neutral policy of not rehiring a worker, even if that person was fired for drug use and is now recovering.

Stephen Montoya, a Phoenix attorney who represented Hernandez, urged the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court ruling, saying the ADA protects his client from being "segregated from the job market" due to past substance abuse.

[anymouse]

Now we know why Ratheon/Hughes satellites have been having so many quality control problems.

[Support Free Republic]

CHEAP THRILLS - $1 (the first one's free!)
	If every FR member gave a buck a month, we wouldn't need fundraisers. Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Bikers4Bush]

He isn't being "segregated from the job market", he's being segregated from the company who was forced to fire him after he showed up at work all jacked up.

I can't believe this made it to the supreme court. Oh wait, yes I can the 9th circuit was involved.