Under the ADA, special rules apply to alcoholics and drug addicts. Alcoholism is considered an “impairment,” although the law explicitly allows a company to hold an alcoholic to the same standards of behavior as other employees, even if her inability to perform is related to her alcoholism. Drug addicts cannot be penalized because of their status—or history—

as addicts, but employers can refuse to hire or fire those who are “current users of illegal drugs.” Like alcoholics, addicts can be held to the same standards and rules as other employees. Consider the case of Jose Hernandez. After testing positive for cocaine (a violation of workplace rules), he resigned from his job at Raytheon. Two years later, he reapplied for work at Raytheon and was turned down. Assuming his work record was otherwise good, was Raytheon justified—legally and/or ethically—in refusing to hire him?

What argument can you make that it was illegal and/or unethical to refuse to rehire him?

See Raytheon v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44, 124 S. Ct. 513 (2003).