SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW EX-ADDICT DISABILITY CASE

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would
decide whether a company violated a federal law protecting disabled
Americans by refusing to rehire workers who have been fired for
drug-related misconduct but have been rehabilitated.

The justices agreed to hear an appeal by Raytheon Co.'s Hughes Missile
Systems Co. of a ruling the defense contractor said confers "preferential
rehire rights" under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

A U.S. appeals court ruled the law's ban on discrimination against the
disabled protected qualified applicants who have been denied a job because
of former drug use.

"A policy that serves to bar the reemployment of a drug addict despite his
successful rehabilitation violates the ADA," the appeals court said.

It said Hughes's policy against rehiring employees who left because of
misconduct violated the law, as it applied to ex-addicts whose only
work-related offense was testing positive for drug use and who have been
rehabilitated.

The case involved Joel Hernandez, a 25-year Hughes employee and a
technician at a plant in Tucson, Arizona. After testing positive for
cocaine in 1991, he was given the option of resigning or being fired. He
quit, and the company in his personnel file noted he left in lieu of discharge.

In 1994, Hernandez reapplied for a job at Hughes, but he was rejected
because of the company's policy against reemploying those who have left
because of misconduct.

Hernandez sued, alleging the company discriminated against him on the basis
of a disability. A federal judge in Arizona dismissed the lawsuit.

But the San Francisco-based appeals court reinstated the lawsuit, ruling
Hernandez had presented enough evidence that a jury could conclude he was
qualified for the job and his application had been rejected because of his
drug addiction.

In appealing, Raytheon, which acquired Hughes, said the ruling was wrong
and should be reversed. It said many companies refuse to rehire discharged
workers.

"Such a no-rehire rule provides an essential form of institutional memory
to help ensure that failed former employees do not slip back into an
organization simply because hiring personnel do not know (or have
forgotten) why former employees earlier departed," the company said.

Lawyers for Hernandez said key factual disputes rendered the case
inappropriate for Supreme Court review. They said the case should be
allowed to proceed to trial.