Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; March 22, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
The Supreme Court has remanded the case to determine if sufficient evidence exists for a jury to conclude that Raytheon made its employment decision regarding Joel Hernandez based on his disability. Upon reviewing the record favorably for Hernandez, a genuine issue of material fact arises regarding whether his non-rehire was influenced by his disability, prompting a reversal of the district court's summary judgment.
Hernandez worked for Hughes Missile Systems, later acquired by Raytheon, for 25 years. After facing attendance issues related to a drug and alcohol problem, he entered a treatment program in 1986 but later resigned in 1991 after testing positive for cocaine. His termination was recorded as a discharge for personal conduct. Since then, he has worked as a maintenance worker at a lower salary.
Hernandez applied for re-employment at Raytheon in 1994, highlighting his recovery efforts through letters from his pastor and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) sponsor, who attested to his progress and commitment to sobriety. However, Joanne Bockmiller from Raytheon's Labor Relations Department reviewed his application and rejected it, following company policy to consider previous employment and personnel records in the screening process.
Hernandez's personnel file contained evidence of prior misconduct, drug test results, and indications of alcohol and substance abuse, along with a referral to a treatment program. Bockmiller, when questioned, acknowledged access to the file but did not confirm a thorough review, stating she specifically reviewed the Employee Separation Summary. Upon discovering Hernandez was discharged for violating workplace conduct rules, she rejected his rehire application based on an unwritten company policy against rehiring employees terminated for such violations. Bockmiller claimed to have learned of this policy informally through her HR experience.
Following the rejection, Hernandez filed charges with the EEOC. In response, Raytheon, via George Medina, asserted that Hernandez was not protected under the ADA due to his ongoing illegal drug use and that his application was denied based on his past drug use and lack of evidence of successful rehabilitation. Medina acknowledged that Hernandez had not provided evidence of completing or participating in a drug rehabilitation program, thus the ADA provisions regarding disabilities did not apply.
Medina also admitted that he did not have information suggesting Hernandez was not in recovery when he wrote the response, despite stating the rejection was based on the unwritten no-rehire policy. Notably, Raytheon's written personnel policies did not explicitly include this no-rehire policy. The EEOC found in favor of Hernandez, determining that Raytheon rejected his application based on his history of substance abuse. Conciliation efforts failed, leading to the issuance of a right to sue letter to Hernandez on June 22, 1998.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities during hiring processes. This includes individuals who have completed or are participating in drug rehabilitation programs and are no longer using illegal drugs, as well as those mistakenly perceived as drug users. In evaluating a summary judgment, courts must view evidence favorably towards the petitioner. The burden of proof lies with Hernandez to demonstrate that his disability influenced the employer's decision. He can achieve this by showing that Raytheon's stated reason for not rehiring him—an oral policy against rehiring individuals discharged for personnel violations—is not credible. At the pretext stage, evidence supporting Hernandez's initial case can be considered alongside discrediting evidence to establish intentional discrimination.
The findings indicate a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Raytheon’s refusal to rehire Hernandez was due to his status as an alcoholic rather than the stated no-rehire policy. Although Bockmiller testified she was unaware of Hernandez's substance abuse history, her review of his personnel file and the materials he submitted, including a letter from his A.A. counselor, suggests she may have been aware of his recovery status. A reasonable jury could infer that his history of addiction motivated Bockmiller's decision, rather than the alleged policy. Additionally, Raytheon acknowledged in its response to the EEOC that its refusal to consider Hernandez’s application was based on his history of substance abuse.
Hernandez's application for rehire at Raytheon was denied due to his previous drug use and a lack of evidence of successful rehabilitation. Raytheon's assertion of an "unwritten policy" against re-hiring individuals terminated for misconduct emerged only after Hernandez initiated legal action following unsuccessful EEOC conciliation efforts. The inconsistent explanations provided by Raytheon may lead a jury to conclude that the company's most recent justification for not rehiring Hernandez is pretextual. A jury might infer that the late introduction of this rationale indicates it is a post-hoc explanation rather than a legitimate reason. Previous cases suggest that inconsistent reasons for employment decisions can be interpreted as evidence of pretext. Additionally, the inability of Raytheon representatives to clarify the details of the unwritten policy raises doubts about its existence or consistent application. The presence of more favorable written policies regarding drug abuse for temporary and part-time employees could also indicate that these policies are more relevant to the case. The court determined that sufficient evidence exists for a jury to conclude that Hernandez was not rehired due to his history of addiction rather than any formal company policy. The court reversed the previous decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, noting that Raytheon waived its challenge to the evidence of discrimination by failing to contest it in their Supreme Court petition. Finally, Raytheon's attempt to disavow an admission regarding the policy, claiming it was made by an uninformed employee, raised factual questions, given that the individual in question attested to the accuracy of the statement. The court acknowledged a previous inconsistency in its record regarding the policy and withdrew a footnote that overstated its application.
