Document: 540 U.S. 44 RAYTHEON CO.v.HERNANDEZ No. 02-749. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 8, 2003. Decided December 2, After respondent tested positive for cocaine and admitted that his behavior violated petitioner's workplace conduct rules, he was forced to resign. More than two years later, applied be rehired, stating on application petitioner had previously employed him, attaching letters both from pastor about active church participation an Alcoholics Anonymous counselor regular attendance at meetings recovery. The employee who reviewed rejected respondent's testified has a policy against rehiring employees are terminated misconduct she did not know former drug addict when application. Respondent filed charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), claiming been discriminated in violation Americans Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA). EEOC issued right-to-sue letter, this ADA action, arguing because record addition and/or regarded as being addict. In response summary judgment motion, first time argued alternative if neutral no-rehire case, it still policy's disparate impact. District granted motion disparate-treatment claim found disparate-impact timely pleaded or raised. Ninth Circuit agreed claim, but held that, under burden-shifting approach McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, proffered prima facie case discrimination, met its burden provide legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason employment action policy, though lawful face, unlawful were lawfully resign illegal use have since rehabilitated. Held: improperly analysis claim. This consistently distinguished between claims. arise employer treats some people less favorably others protected characteristic. Liability depends whether trait actually motivated employer's action. latter involve facially practices fall more harshly one group another cannot justified by business necessity. Such may deemed illegally discriminatory without evidence subjective discrimination. Both claims cognizable ADA, courts must careful distinguish theories. Here, limited theory refused rehire him disabled disability. Petitioner's proffer plainly satisfied obligation refusing respondent. Thus, only remaining question before there sufficient which jury could conclude make decision based status despite explanation. Instead, court concluded matter law, defeat doing so, focused factors pertain claims, thus ignored fact nohire is quintessential violating rules. Pp. 52-55. 298 F. 3d 1030, vacated remanded. THOMAS, J., delivered opinion Court, all other Members joined, except SOUTER, took no part BREYER, consideration case. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT Carter G. Phillips cause petitioner. With briefs Alan Charles Raul, Paul Grossman, W. Cane, Jr., Neal D. Mollen, Jay B. Stephens, Ronald Stolkin. Deputy Solicitor General Clement States amicus curiae urging reversal. brief Olson, Assistant Attorney Boyd, John P. Elwood, David K. Flynn, Sarah E. Harrington. Stephen Montoya respondent.* JUSTICE THOMAS Court. 1 (ADA), 104 Stat. 327, amended, 42 C. § 12101 et seq., makes employer, respect hiring, "discriminate qualified individual disability such individual." 12112(a). We asked decide confers preferential rights Appeals unwritten left company personal rules contravenes least Because order reach holding, we vacate remand further proceedings consistent opinion. do not, however, certiorari. 537 1187 (2003). 2 * Respondent, Joel Hernandez, worked Hughes Missile Systems 25 years.1 On July 11, 1991, appearance work suggested might influence drugs alcohol. Pursuant test, came back cocaine. subsequently up late drinking beer using night test. Respondent's "Employee Separation Summary" indicated separation: "discharge (quit lieu discharge)." App. 12a. 3 January 24, 1994, rehired stated He also attached reference application, pastor, "faithful member" church, counselor, attends regularly Id., 13a-15a. 4 Joanne Bockmiller, company's Labor Relations Department, Bockmiller her deposition disclosed prior company, pulled personnel file separation summary. She then insisted misconduct. 62a. discharged testified, particular, made see anything would constitute "record of" addiction. 63a-64a. 5 (EEOC). discrimination give nonselection, believed ADA. 6 Petitioner responded submitting letter EEOC, George M. Medina, Sr., Manager Diversity Development, wrote: 7 "The specifically exempts protection individuals currently engaging covered entity acts basis use. Contrary Complainant's unfounded allegation, non-selection any legitimate Rather, demonstrated while complete lack indicating successful rehabilitation. 8 Company maintains it's [sic] right deny re-employment regulations. . Complainant provided alter Company's position [petitioner] ineligible rehire." 19a-20a. 9 response, together submitted alerted termination, led "rejected [respondent's] past alcohol use." 94a (EEOC Determination Letter, Nov. 20, 1997). "reasonable believe [respondent] denied hire Product Test Specialist disability." 95a. alleging 10 proceeded through discovery addiction See §§ 12102(2)(B)-(C).2 judgment, really apply However, consider failed plead raise manner. 11 Hernandez Co., 1037, n. 20 (CA9 2002). addressing familiar adopted 792 (1973).3 First, genuine issues material regarding sought refusal addiction.4 3d, 1034-1035. preclude grant judgment. 1035. does challenge aspect Circuit's decision, address here. 12 moved next step Douglas, where shifts defendant S., 802. contends constituted Appeals, although admitting rule "as addicts whose work-related offense testing their addiction." 1036. rejecting application: 13 "Maintaining blanket screens out persons successfully rehabilitated, well result, here, staff member unaware `disability' committing act. Additionally, hold serves bar reemployment rehabilitation violates ADA." 1036-1037. 14 words, ostensibly evaluating failing rebut showing treatment, never suffice use, impact recovering addicts. so erred conflating analytical framework Had correctly framework, obliged is, definition, non-discriminatory ADA.5 And produce "petitioner's rejection pretext." supra, 804. II 15 recognized distinction treatment said "`[d]isparate treatment' most easily understood type simply race, color, religion, sex, [other characteristic]." Teamsters States, 431 324, 335, (1977). Hazen Paper Co. Biggins, 507 604, 609 (1993) (discussing context Age Discrimination 1967). "depends decision." 610. By contrast, "involve different groups necessity." Teamsters, 335-336, 15. Under "a practice [illegally discriminatory] intent discriminate required `disparate-treatment' case." Wards Cove Packing Atonio, 490 642, 645-646 (1989), superseded statute grounds, Civil Rights 105, 105 1074-1075, 2000e-2(k) (1994 ed.). 16 12112(b) (defining "discriminate" include "utilizing standards, criteria, methods administration effect disability" "using qualification tests selection criteria screen tend disability"). "the factual issues, therefore character presented, differ plaintiff classes," Texas Dept. Community Affairs Burdine, 450 248, 252, (1981), these pursue concluded, agreed, theory, 20. 17 relevant after presented explanation respondent, discrimination.6 even attempt, remainder opinion, treat involving treatment. observed "screens addiction," noted raised necessity defense, 1036-1037, 19, See, e.g., Grano Department Development Columbus, 637 2d 1073, 1081 (CA6 1980) ("In situation issue device disproportionate numbers [the class]").7 focusing factors, If indeed neutral, generally applicable can, way, 18 "serves rehabilitation." inapplicable Once offered actions demonstrate To extent strayed task considering impact, 19 It ordered. SOUTER BREYER Notes: Ann Elizabeth Reesman, A. Bokat, Robin Conrad, Ellen Bryant Advisory Council al. amici Briefs affirmance Betty Ford Center T. Goldberg Daniel N. Abrahamson; National Lawyers Association Claudia Center, Brian East, Terisa Chaw, Arlene Mayerson. acquired petitioner, Raytheon Company. For sake clarity, refer collectively defines term "disability" as: "(A) physical mental impairment substantially limits major life activities individual; "(B) impairment; "(C) having impairment." 12102(2). inMcDonnell set forth scheme discriminatory-treatment cases. establish articulate meets burden, presumption intentional disappears, can prove by, instance, offering demonstrating pretextual. Reeves Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 133, 143 (2000). Courts utilized reviewing motions Pugh Attica, 259 619, 626 (CA7 2001) (applying claim). "it possible druguser `disabled' rise level activities." 1033-1034, 9. parties dispute "disabled" quit discharge exists. need constitutes triggers protections disputing applied. course, resolve over Indeed, expressed confusion point, "raise[d] addiction,"id., 1034, later "no [no-rehire] application." 1036, 17. characterized merely "testing [his] related disability, account point similar argument Act. SeeHazen 611 (1993). Nation's antidiscrimination laws undoubtedly aimed problem inaccurate stigmatizing stereotypes,"ibid., unfortunate result "remaining `disability.'" explain, how reject entirely existed. truly existed, impossible hiring based, part, And, turned disabled, cannot, ipso facto, subject

Category: 1