In the case of Raytheon Company v. Joel Hernandez, 2003, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Raytheon Co., overturning a Ninth Circuit decision that had previously favored Mr. Hernandez. The dispute began when Joel Hernandez, who was dismissed from his job at Raytheon due to alcohol-related misconduct and subsequently completed a rehabilitation program for alcoholism, reapplied for his position but was denied reemployment under company policy prohibiting rehiring employees terminated due to workplace conduct violations. He filed suit alleging disability discrimination under Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The lower court sided with Mr.Hernandez while the appellate court reversed this decision stating that ADA does not protect individuals from consequences of violating public policies against substance abuse at work place.The Supreme Court upheld this view by ruling that an employer's refusal to hire a former employee because he had been fired for misconduct is lawful even if such misconduct was related to a disability.

In the dissenting opinion for Raytheon Company v. Joel Hernandez, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the majority's decision to remand the case was unnecessary and inconsistent with previous rulings. He contended that there was no evidence of pretext in Raytheon’s refusal to rehire Hernandez due to his past termination for drug use while employed by them. According to Thomas, this policy applied uniformly without regard for whether an applicant had subsequently rehabilitated or not, thus it did not violate The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Furthermore, he pointed out that ADA does not require employers to ignore past misconduct even if it is related to a disability. Therefore, he believed that Raytheon’s non-rehiring policy should have been upheld as lawful under ADA because its basis was on a prior employment violation rather than discrimination against a recovered drug addict.