In Hernandez v. Hughes Missile Systems, Co., 2002 WL 1275603, the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit faced the issue of whether a successfully rehabilitated drug addict’s rights under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) were violated as a result of an employer’s policy which forbids the rehire of former employees who were terminated or resigned because of violations of the employee code of conduct.
Facts
Hughes Missile Systems Company (Hughes) gave Joel Hernandez the option to resign instead of termination after he tested positive for cocaine. Two years after his resignation, Hernandez applied to be rehired by Hughes. An employee in Hughes’ personnel office concluded that Hernandez was ineligible for rehire due to an unwritten company policy which forbids the rehire of a former employee whose employment ended by termination or resignation in lieu of termination because of a violation of the employee code of conduct. The employee denied that she knew the details of Hernandez’s resignation when she denied his application. Hernandez filed a lawsuit alleging that Hughes did not rehire him because of his past drug use.
The Appellate Decision
The Court of Appeals found that Hernandez made a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA. In order to establish a prima facie case under the ADA, Hughes was required to show 1) he has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 2) he is qualified to perform the job for which he applied, and 3) Hughes refused to rehire him because of his disability. It was undisputed that Hernandez was disabled within the meaning of the ADA at the time of his resignation. The Court concluded that Hernandez was qualified for the position and that Hughes did not rehire him because of his past record of drug addiction. The Court rejected Hughes’ argument that its policy does not discriminate against former employees with drug problems because it does not single out such employees or treat them differently from former employees who violated other portions of the code of conduct. The Court concluded that, although the policy is not unlawful on its face, it “violates the ADA as applied to former drug addicts whose only work-related offense was testing positive because of their addiction.”
The Court found insignificant the fact that Hughes’ employee had no knowledge of the reason for Hernandez’s resignation at the time she denied his application. The Court opined that an employer may not avoid responsibility for an ADA violation where it has, “willfully induced ignorance on the part of its employees who make hiring decisions.”