HIGH COURT ISSUES NARROW RULING ON ADA'S SCOPE

Justices Rule Raytheon Wasn't Required To Rehire A Recovered Drug User

WASHINGTON -- As part of a continuing effort to define how far
disability-rights legislation can be stretched, the Supreme Court sided
with a Raytheon Co. unit that refused to rehire a recovered drug user who
said his addiction was a disability.

The justices, however, didn't issue the definitive ruling the business
community had been looking for in the case, and as a result cheering from
business groups wasn't as loud as it would have been with a broader ruling.

The Written Record

Read the court's opinion in the hiring case and the police-search case, by
arrangement with Findlaw (www.findlaw.com)

In writing the court's opinion on a case brought under the 1990 Americans
With Disabilities Act, Justice Clarence Thomas said Raytheon's policy "is a
quintessential legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for refusing to rehire
an employee who was terminated for violating workplace conduct rules."

A U.S. district court upheld Raytheon's position that it didn't have to
rehire the man after he was treated for addiction, but the federal appeals
court in San Francisco reversed that decision. Raytheon had rejected the
man's application, citing a policy of not rehiring people fired for
misconduct. The business community wanted the justices to rule that
companies can enforce workplace rules without exceptions for such
disabilities as alcohol and drug abuse without violating the ADA. Instead,
the high court said the appeals court's analysis was faulty and sent the
case back for further work.

As a result, Tuesday's 7-0 decision, with Justices David Souter and Stephen
Breyer not participating, didn't set clear guidance on the degree of
protection the ADA provides in such cases for millions of recovered
substance abusers. Although the Supreme Court case didn't address the
issue, the ADA doesn't protect current users of illegal drugs , but it does
protect rehabilitated substance abusers if they can prove they are
recovering addicts.

"I would say with some qualified optimism that this is a very good decision
for employers, but it's limited in its scope," said Peter Petesch, a
specialist in disability law at Ford & Harrison, a Washington law firm.

However, Chai Feldblum, a law professor at Georgetown University Law
Center, said the ruling "should raise the consciousness of employers that
neutral rules, such as 'we don't hire someone fired for misconduct,' which
sound legitimate ... can have a disparate impact on a class of people who
are protected by federal law."

Although the Raytheon case isn't conclusive, the Supreme Court, over the
past few years, has narrowed the ADA's reach in a string of decisions. The
court has ruled that the ADA doesn't cover workers with carpal tunnel
syndrome and that a company had a right to not hire a worker whose medical
condition might be worsened by the job.

Tuesday's case involves Joel Hernandez, who worked for 25 years for Hughes
Missile Systems, a unit of Raytheon. On July 11, 1991, Mr. Hernandez
appeared to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol while at work, and
he tested positive for cocaine. Having violated the company's workplace
rules, he was forced to resign. Early in 1994, he applied to be rehired,
submitting letters of recommendation from his pastor and a drug counselor
saying he was no longer using drugs . The application was rejected because
the company had an unwritten policy against rehiring people who violated
the company's workplace rules.

Mr. Hernandez took his case to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, which found "reasonable cause" that his application was denied
because of his addiction, which is considered a disability under the ADA.
He subsequently filed a lawsuit claiming that his former employer violated
the law. Later he also argued that even if the company's no-rehire policy
didn't directly discriminate, it still violated the ADA because it
discriminated against him indirectly. Such discrimination is known as
"disparate impact," which means that a person is discriminated against, for
example, because a rule has a disproportionate impact on a particular
group, such as women or minorities.

The lower courts ruled that Mr. Hernandez had entered the disparate-impact
claim too late in the process for it to be considered. As a result, in
Tuesday's decision, the court ruled that the U.S. Appeals Court for the
Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, incorrectly used disparate impact in its
analysis of Mr. Hernandez's case. The high court vacated the appeals
court's ruling and sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit for further
action consistent with the high court's opinion.

(Raytheon v. Hernandez)

Separately, the high court ruled that law-enforcement officers may wait as
little as 15 or 20 seconds after knocking on a door and announcing their
presence before executing a search warrant.

The case involved the search of an apartment by the North Las Vegas, Nev.,
police department and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, who broke
open the front door of an apartment with a battering ram after first
knocking and announcing their presence. The search yielded weapons, crack
cocaine and other evidence. The suspect, who had been in the shower and
didn't hear the knock on the door, tried to have the evidence suppressed,
asserting that the law officers violated his Fourth Amendment protection
from unreasonable searches and seizures by busting in after so short a
period of time.

Justice Souter, writing for a unanimous court, said the law-enforcement
agents' actions were justified. "We think that after 15 or 20 seconds
without a response, police could fairly suspect that cocaine would be gone
if they were reticent any longer."

(U.S. v. Banks)