Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez
2003 U.S. LEXIS 8965, 540 U.S. 44, 157 L. Ed. 2d 357 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an employer's neutral, uniformly applied policy of not rehiring former employees who were terminated for violating workplace conduct rules is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for an employment action in a disparate-treatment claim.
Facts:
- Joel Hernandez worked for Hughes Missile Systems for 25 years.
- On July 11, 1991, Hernandez appeared to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol at work.
- A subsequent drug test was positive for cocaine, and Hernandez admitted to using the drug.
- As this violated Hughes' workplace conduct rules, the company forced Hernandez to resign.
- Over two years later, in January 1994, Hernandez, having undergone rehabilitation, applied to be rehired by Hughes.
- His application included a disclosure of his prior employment and reference letters from his pastor and an Alcoholics Anonymous counselor attesting to his recovery.
- A company employee, Joanne Bockmiller, reviewed his application and his personnel file, which noted his prior termination for violating conduct rules.
- Bockmiller rejected Hernandez's application based on the company's unwritten policy not to rehire employees who were terminated for misconduct.
Procedural Posture:
- Joel Hernandez filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe discrimination had occurred and issued a right-to-sue letter.
- Hernandez filed suit against Raytheon Company (as successor to Hughes) in the U.S. District Court, alleging disparate treatment in violation of the ADA.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Raytheon, finding Hernandez had not timely raised a disparate-impact claim and had failed to provide sufficient evidence on his disparate-treatment claim.
- Hernandez (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit (appellee Raytheon) reversed the District Court's summary judgment, holding that Raytheon's unwritten no-rehire policy was not a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason as applied to recovering drug addicts.
- Raytheon (petitioner) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, is an employer's unwritten policy of not rehiring former employees terminated for workplace misconduct a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for refusing to rehire a recovering drug addict?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
Yes. An employer's neutral no-rehire policy is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its employment decision under the disparate-treatment framework of the ADA. The Ninth Circuit erred by conflating disparate-treatment and disparate-impact analyses. A disparate-treatment claim requires evidence that the employer's decision was motivated by the employee's protected status (disability). In contrast, a disparate-impact claim challenges a facially neutral policy that disproportionately affects a protected group, regardless of intent. Because this case was pleaded as a disparate-treatment claim, the analysis should have followed the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Once Hernandez established a prima facie case, Raytheon met its burden by offering a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason: its neutral policy against rehiring individuals terminated for misconduct. The proper inquiry for the appellate court was not whether the policy had a disparate impact on recovering drug addicts, but whether Hernandez could produce sufficient evidence to show that Raytheon's stated reason was a pretext for intentional disability discrimination.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the critical distinction between disparate-treatment and disparate-impact claims under the ADA. It reinforces that a facially neutral employment policy can serve as a legitimate defense to a disparate-treatment claim, even if that policy disproportionately affects a protected class. The ruling places a higher burden on plaintiffs in such cases, requiring them to produce evidence that the employer's stated neutral reason is actually a pretext for intentional discrimination. By preventing the two theories from being conflated, the Court maintained the integrity of the McDonnell Douglas framework and made it more difficult for plaintiffs to challenge neutral policies under a disparate-treatment theory.
Unlock the full brief for Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez