Analysis of Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez: Employment Law Case Study

This case study analyzes Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, focusing on employment law and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case involves an employee, Joel Hernandez, terminated for workplace misconduct due to drug use. After rehabilitation, Hernandez applied for re-hiring but was rejected based on the company's no-rehire policy for misconduct. The analysis examines whether the ADA protects former drug abusers and if the company's actions constituted discrimination. The court considered the issue of disparate treatment, the application of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, and the interpretation of 42 U.S.C. § 12114(a). The court ultimately determined the company's refusal to rehire was discriminatory, regardless of rehabilitation, as it acted as a bar to re-employment for a former drug user. The analysis also references related cases like Brown v. Lucky Stores and Sullivan v. Neiman Marcus Group to provide context on ADA and addiction.

Running head: EMPLOYMENT LAW
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Facts:
 The Respondent, Joel Hernandez used to work for the petitioner company named
Raytheon Co.
 On July 11, 1991, while being on duty, the respondent’s looks and conduct reflected
that he was under serious drug influence.
 The respondent was asked to go through a drug test by the company, the result for
which came positive for cocaine.
 According to the company, the respondent violated workplace conduct, and thereby
he was asked to resign from the company.
 The “Employee Separation Summary” of the employee mentioned the reason for his
discharge as ‘discharge for personal conduct’.
 After two years respondent applied for re-hiring in the same organization showing
two reference letters from his pastor and the counsellor treated him to cure his
addiction.
 Joanne Bockmiller, who was the member of the Labor Relations Department of the
company, rejected respondent’s plea on the ground that the company does not have a
re-hire policy for those who have been terminated for workplace misconduct.
 The respondent then instituted a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) appealing that the respondent did not give him a reason for
rejecting his plea.
 The respondent further held that the petitioner had violated the guidelines of
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq (Raytheon Co. v.
Hernandez, 2003).

2
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Issue:
 Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 gives the authority of refusal to
an employer to re-hire an employee discharged previously on the ground of workplace
misconduct?
 Whether a former alcoholic and drug abuser are categorized as disabled under ADA?
Analysis:
The district court, in this case, allowed the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment
regarding the claim of disparate-treatment raised by the respondent and rejected the
respondent’s plea on the ground of delay (Hernandez v. Hughes Missile Systems Co., 2004).
The ninth circuit court, while dealing with the disparate claim of the respondent in this case,
referred the findings of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, and held that firstly the
respondent is bound to create a prima facie incident of discrimination against the petitioner.
The onus then moves on the respondent (employer) to give an explanation for their action
regarding the discrimination. If an employer successfully meets these burden, the assumption
of deliberate discrimination goes away. However, the plaintiff can prove the existence of
disparate treatment by showing prima facie evidence regarding the employer’s intentional
discrimination. The court further stated that an employer needs to prove the fact of
nondiscrimination because the no-rehire policy of the company is although legal but it is
unlawful According to section 12114(a) of title 42 of USC. As per the code, a person who is
no longer is under the influence of drugs and alcohol and also have undergone the necessary
rehabilitation program, is excluded from the definition of a ‘qualified individual with a
disability’ (Atkins & Hayman, 2017). In another case of Brown v. Lucky Stores, the court
held that alcoholism and drug addiction is a disability under ADA. However, in another case
of Sullivan v. Neiman Marcus Group, the court held that alcoholism and drug consumption is
not per se disability under the ADA. The question in issue was whether the petitioner denied

3
EMPLOYMENT LAW
re-hiring the respondent on the ground of him being a past drug abuser or that the company
does not have any re-hire policy.
The court of appeal stated that an employer could refuse to re-hire an employee, who
has been previously dismissed on the ground of workplace misconduct resulting from the
consumption of drug or alcohol during working hours. However, it is not justified if the
termination is based on the worker’s addiction, which did not result in the breach of any
workplace rule.
Judgement:
Therefore, the court held that the petitioner’s decision of not to re-hire the respondent
is illegitimate and discriminatory because it worked as a bar to the re-employment of a
former drug user irrespective of his effective rehabilitation.

4
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Reference:
Atkins, D. G., & Hayman Jr, R. L. (2017). Disability and the law: an essay on inclusion,
from theory to practice. Widener L. Rev., 23, 167.
Brown v. Lucky Stores, (9th Cir. 2001) 246 F.3d 1182, 1187
Hernandez v. Hughes Missile Systems Co., (2004) 298 F.3d 1030, 1037, n. 2
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, (1973), 411 U. S. 792
Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez (2003), 540 U.S. 44
Sullivan v. Neiman Marcus Group, (2004)358 F.3d 110, 114-15