COURT WALKING THIN LINE ON ADA AND ADDICTION

In the quintessential example of the law of unintended consequences,
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that the Americans
with Disabilities Act doesn't protect workers fired for breaking
company rules. At least that's what the ruling seems to say.

Joel Hernandez, an employee of Hughes Missile Systems, was fired in
1991 after he tested positive for cocaine use. Two years later, after
kicking his habit, Hernandez applied to be rehired. Hughes turned him
down, citing a policy against rehiring former employees dismissed for
breaking company rules.

He sued, claiming that because he was an addict, the ADA protected him
from discrimination. A district court threw out the case, but
Hernandez appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which
reinstated the suit. Raytheon Co., now the owner of Hughes, appealed
to the Supreme Court, arguing it did not refuse to rehire Hernandez
because of his addiction, but because he had broken rules against drug
use.

Although the ruling affirms a company's right to enforce policies
against rehiring former employees dismissed for breaking company
rules, it drew a very thin line that is likely to cause more confusion
than it resolves. That's because substance addiction is considered a
disability under the ADA, thus addicts are protected by the law. A
worker cannot be fired for being an addict, but according to this
latest ruling, can be fired for breaking rules against using drugs.
Along those same lines, employers can refuse to rehire an employee if
he was dismissed because of drug use, even if he is now drug-free, but
not if his addiction did not result in workplace infractions.

That last bit has us scratching our heads: Why would an employee,
addict or not, be fired if not for breaking the rules?

As with other ADA cases, this one highlights unintended consequences
of often well-intentioned laws. Enacted to help disabled workers
obtain and retain jobs, the ADA is frequently stretched to define
"disability" as pretty much anything some aggrieved worker wants it to
be.

When Congress tinkers with something that affects all Americans, it
does so at the risk of doing more harm than good. If Congress would
confine itself to the duties assigned it by the Constitution, perhaps
things would run more smoothly.