COURT WEIGHS RIGHTS OF RECOVERING ADDICTS

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with the workplace
rights of recovering drug addicts and alcoholics in a case with
implications for thousands of employers and more than 5 million workers
with substance abuse problems. The justices are considering whether an
Arizona missile plant worker who lost his job after testing positive for
drugs deserved to be rehired after getting sober.

In one of the most closely watched business cases of the term that began
this week, the case of Joel Hernandez requires the court to clarify
protections for workers under the landmark Americans With Disabilities Act.

The law specifically protects people who are clean after being treated for
their addiction, but allows companies to discipline those who use
substances on the job.

At issue is Hughes Missile Systems' treatment of the 25-year employee, who
was tested for drugs when he came to work one day in 1991 and reeked of
alcohol. Hernandez quit when the test showed he had used cocaine. More than
two years later, after completing drug and alcohol treatment, he was
rebuffed when he tried to get rehired.

The company had an unwritten policy against rehiring workers who broke rules.

"Thousands of employers have precisely this rule," said the company's
lawyer, Carter Phillips.

The Bush administration argued that Hughes, now owned by Raytheon Co., and
other companies should be allowed to permanently bar workers for misconduct
such as showing up on the job while high on drugs or alcohol. Hernandez's
lawyer, Stephen Montoya of Phoenix, said his client has embraced religion
and overcome drugs and alcohol. His recovery should trump Hughes' policy of
never rehiring a rule-breaker, Montoya told the justices.

Hernandez, who said he earns much less now as a maintenance supervisor at a
shopping center, attended the arguments.

"After considerable rehab, I turned my life around and went back to apply
for a job that I qualified for," he said afterward. "I was trying to
re-establish myself."

The Supreme Court has never sided with an employee or former employee in
cases testing the reach of the ADA in the workplace. At least two justices,
Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, questioned whether the
Hernandez case was in the right posture for a Supreme Court ruling.

The court has several options: dismiss the case, overturn an appeals court
ruling in favor of Hernandez without ruling on the merits, or address the
issue and give Hernandez a chance to continue his case in lower courts.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, considered the most
liberal appeals court in the country, ruled that a jury should decide if
Hernandez was a discrimination victim under the 1990 disabilities law.

Groups such as the Betty Ford Center and National Council on Alcoholism and
Drug Dependence filed briefs supporting Hernandez, arguing that most
families have experience with addiction and that millions of people have
overcome it.

The court itself has some experience with that as well.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist developed a dependence on a prescription
sedative and was in a detoxification program directed by a neurosurgeon at
George Washington University Hospital, according to a 1982 report in
Science magazine. Rehnquist, who has long battled chronic back pain, was
hospitalized after suffering a withdrawal reaction in late 1981.

The Supreme Court was told that 5.6 million workers have symptoms of drug
addiction and nearly 16 million people illegally use drugs.

Two of the nine justices decided not to participate in the case - Stephen
Breyer and David H. Souter. Neither gave a reason. Justices commonly
decline to take part in cases in which they have financial or personal
interests.

The case is Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 02-749.