In the fall of 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case concerning the protections afforded under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to individuals who have successfully completed drug rehabilitation programs.  The case, Raytheon Company v. Joel Hernandez, concerns a man who sued his former employer after he was denied consideration for rehiring because he had resigned three years earlier after a positive drug test. 

Joel Hernandez worked for the Raytheon Company (formerly known as Hughes Missile Systems Company) for twenty-five years, starting as a janitor and working his way up to Calibration Service Technician.  In 1991, Mr. Hernandez tested positive for cocaine after a company mandated drug test.  Mr. Hernandez admitted that he had a drug problem and, rather than be terminated, he resigned.  In 1994, after successfully treating his addiction, Mr. Hernandez reapplied for a job at Raytheon and was denied consideration for rehire. 

Mr. Hernandez filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and later sued Raytheon, alleging that the company’s rejection of his application violated the ADA.  While the ADA does not protect current drug users, it explicitly protects individuals who are participating in a supervised drug treatment program, have successfully completed a drug treatment program, or have been successfully rehabilitated and no longer use illegal drugs.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Mr. Hernandez had a valid case of discrimination on the basis of his disability.  But the Raytheon Company appealed this decision and the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the appeal. 

This is an important opportunity to make clear that people in recovery should not be deprived of equal access to employment or other basic services. Drug Policy Alliance submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court supporting Mr. Hernandez on behalf of national treatment providers and associations including the Betty Ford Center, the American Society of Addiction Medicine, NAADAC/The Association of Addiction Professionals, National Association of Addiction Treatment Providers and the Johnson Institute.  These organizations highlight for the Court the history of prejudice against people who suffer from substance dependence disorders, as well as people who are in recovery, that ultimately led Congress to enact the ADA.  The brief also argues that there is no valid reason to prevent an individual who formerly used drugs, but no longer does, from being considered for rehire.

Oral arguments in the case will be heard in the Fall of 2003.