Supreme Court weighs rights of recovering addicts in workplace

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with the workplace rights of recovering drug addicts and alcoholics in a case with implications for thousands of employers and more than 5 million workers with substance abuse problems.

The justices are considering whether an Arizona missile plant worker who lost his job after testing positive for drugs deserved to be rehired after getting sober.

In one of the most closely watched business cases of the term that began this week, the case of Joel Hernandez requires the court to clarify protections for workers under the landmark Americans With Disabilities Act.

The law specifically protects people who are clean after being treated for their addiction, but allows companies to discipline those who use substances on the job.

At issue is Hughes Missile Systems' treatment of the 25-year employee, who was tested for drugs when he came to work one day in 1991 and reeked of alcohol. Hernandez quit when the test showed he had used cocaine. More than two years later, after completing drug and alcohol treatment, he was rebuffed when he tried to get rehired.

The company had an unwritten policy against rehiring workers who broke rules.

"Thousands of employers have precisely this rule," said the company's attorney, Carter Phillips.

The Bush administration argued that Hughes, now owned by Raytheon Co., and other companies should be allowed to permanently bar workers for misconduct such as showing up on the job while high on drugs or alcohol.

Overcame his addictions

Hernandez's attorney, Stephen Montoya of Phoenix, said his client has embraced religion and overcome drugs and alcohol. His recovery should trump Hughes' policy of never rehiring a rule-breaker, Montoya told the justices.

Hernandez, who said he earns much less now as a maintenance supervisor at a shopping center, attended the arguments.

The Supreme Court has never sided with an employee or former employee in cases testing the reach of the ADA in the workplace. At least two justices, Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, questioned whether the Hernandez case was in the right posture for a Supreme Court ruling.

The court has several options: dismiss the case, overturn an appeals court ruling in favor of Hernandez without ruling on the merits, or address the issue and give Hernandez a chance to continue his case in lower courts.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, considered the most liberal appeals court in the country, ruled that a jury should decide if Hernandez was a discrimination victim under the 1990 disabilities law.

Groups such as the Betty Ford Center and National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence filed briefs supporting Hernandez, arguing that most families have experience with addiction and that millions of people have overcome it.

The court itself has some experience with that as well.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who has long suffered from chronic back pain, was hospitalized in late 1981 and early 1982 to withdraw from the drug Placidyl, normally prescribed for insomnia.

The Supreme Court was told that 5.6 million workers have symptoms of drug addiction and nearly 16 million people illegally use drugs.

Two of the nine justices decided not to participate in the case -- Stephen Breyer and David H. Souter. Neither gave a reason. Justices commonly decline to take part in cases in which they have financial or personal interests.

The case is Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 02-749.

------

On the Net

Supreme Court: www.supremecourtus.gov