The Proverbial Get Out of Jail Free Card The Ninth Circuit’s Treatment of Addiction Under Hernandez v. Hughes Missile Systems Co.

Joel used cocaine at work and was given the choice to quit instead of getting fired. His former employer has a policy not to rehire people who were fired or quit for breaking company rules, but Joel sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act because he has an addiction. Hernandez applied for a job at Hughes, but his application was rejected. He claimed it was because of his past drug addiction, which is considered a disability. Hughes said they did not rehire employees who had been terminated or resigned because of breaking company rules. The court said there was a question of whether Hernandez was not rehired because of his past addiction and that Hughes had a legitimate reason for not rehiring him. The Ninth Circuit rejected Hughes’ reason for not rehiring Hernandez without fully analyzing it. The court concluded that Hughes’ policy against rehiring former employees who violated company policy was not a legitimate reason, even though it was not unlawful. This goes against the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and gives special treatment to individuals with drug addictions. The court did not consider a specific provision of the ADA that allows employers to hold employees who use drugs to the same standards as others, even if their behavior is related to drug use. The court’s decision in the Hernandez case says that a company cannot refuse to rehire someone just because they used to have a drug addiction. This means that someone who was addicted to drugs in the past cannot be punished for it now, even if their addiction caused them to break company rules. This is different from how people with disabilities are usually treated. The court is struggling with how to interpret the law, but it seems like they are giving special treatment to people with addictions, which is not the usual way the law works. The law says that someone with an addiction can’t be automatically excluded from being considered for a job. But if the employer has a fair policy about not rehiring people with a history of drug problems, they can still enforce that policy. The Eleventh Circuit has not made a decision on this issue yet, but they have given some hints about how they might rule. In Terrell v. USAir, the Eleventh Circuit said that employers don’t have to create part-time jobs for disabled employees unless it’s necessary. They also said that the ADA doesn’t give special treatment to disabled workers. The Ninth Circuit made a different decision about addiction and employment, but the Eleventh Circuit might not agree with it. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hernandez creates a dilemma for employers. It forces them to ignore misconduct by employees who classify themselves as addicts, even if they violate workplace rules. This goes against the idea of treating individuals with disabilities equally. The decision could have negative implications for how workplaces handle drug use and addiction. It also contradicts previous court decisions. Overall, it raises concerns about the impact of the decision on workplace norms and policies.

In other words, the court’s decision in Hernandez could create issues for employers when dealing with employees who classify themselves as addicts. It goes against the idea of treating individuals with disabilities equally and could have negative effects on workplace policies and norms.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-proverbial-get-out-of-jail-free-card-the-ninth-circuits-treatment-of-addiction-under-hernandez-v-hughes-missile-systems-co/