JUSTICES TO HEAR 4 CASES, 3 FROM U.S. COURT IN S.F.

High Court To Decide On Rights Of Ex-Drug Users

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether companies can
refuse to hire one-time drug users or alcoholics.

Last year, the federal appeals court in California ruled that recovered drug
users can be seen as having a disability and are thus protected from
discrimination under federal law.

The decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
cleared the way for a former technician for Hughes Missile Systems in Tucson
to sue his former employer for refusing to rehire him.

Joel Hernandez had worked at the plant for 25 years when he quit in 1991
because of cocaine use. After going through a recovery program, he reapplied
for his former job in 1994, but was rejected.

Lawyers for Hughes said the company had a policy of not rehiring workers who
left because of misconduct, including drug use. They urged the high court to
take up the issue and to rule that the law does not create a right to a
``second chance.''

The case of Raytheon vs. Hernandez, to be heard in the fall, will mark the
first ruling from the high court on the status of drug users and alcoholics
under the 1990 law.

Monday, the high court returned to work after a four-week recess and turned
away several hundred appeals. The justices voted to take up four cases --
three of them from the 9th Circuit.

In a key environmental dispute, the justices agreed to consider whether
states can relax clean-air standards.

During the Clinton administration, the Environmental Protection Agency
refused to permit a diesel-fired generator at a mine in Alaska. State
officials said they would have allowed the polluting generator, hoping to
create jobs in the area.

The 9th Circuit Court upheld the EPA. Federal authority is needed ``to
protect states from industry pressure to issue ill-advised permits,'' said
Judge Kim Wardlow.

Washington attorney John Roberts, a pending Bush nominee to the U.S. Court
of Appeals, appealed on behalf of Alaska, arguing that the EPA had ``usurped
the authority'' due the states.

The third case concerned a drug raid at a Las Vegas apartment. The law
usually requires officers to knock on the door and announce their presence
before breaking into a home.

In this case, officers used a battering ram to break down a door about 15
seconds after announcing who they were. They found the resident, Lashawn
Banks, in the shower.

The 9th Circuit said this was an unreasonable search. U.S. Solicitor General
Theodore Olson appealed, saying officers should be given more leeway to
carry out such raids.

The court steered away Monday from a past controversy.

Indiana requires women seeking an abortion to have in-person counseling
within 18 hours of the procedure. Abortion-rights advocates said this
requirement was unnecessary and burdensome, but the court refused to hear
the appeal.