Affirmative Action in Hiring - Research Paper

Introduction

Raytheon CO. v. Hernandez was a landmark judgment by Supreme court of America found under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an impartial no-rehire plan is a valid, equal, motive for rejecting to employ a staff who had a history of drug abuse(Chen, 2015). In a 7-2 decision on December 2, 2003, the Supreme Court strayed the task by viewing it biased determined as well as biased influence. The Court's opinion, as written by Justice Thomas, outlined cases which confer with ADA special re-employment privileges on incapacitated staffs legally dismissed for disrespecting office conduct guidelines.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In line with the way America operate their business, the respondent, Joel Hernandez, was unprofessional, incompetent and violated employees conduct. Adding to a resilient labor principle, America business culture is branded by substantial stress on an employee and accomplishment (Barnett, 2008). The respondent behavior and appearance suggested he was under drugs and alcohol. In America, business communication is very direct (Susskinda, Brymer, GonKim, Leec, & Way, 2014).

Generally, they stick to the phrase, straight to the point. In case of a conflict, it is dealt with directly and openly. In this case, the events are quite clear- respondent portrays habit of drug abuse, a drug test is done, he tests positive and he is fired (Beauraina & Mascleta, 2016). In accordance with this culture, the respondent rehires application denial is also clear. Americans do not hesitate to say no and voice their opinions when it comes to business matters. In negotiations and contracts, Americans are deal focused (Susskinda et al., 2014).

They get down to business right away and get to build relationships while business activities are underway. As such the petitioner did not get to know of the respondent drug record, but later focused on their skills and qualifications for the job. Agreements are lawfully obligatory charters and are common in America (Beauraina & Mascleta, 2016). When deliberating, all the lawful features and important facts of the agreement are usually inspected. And policies strictly adhere to the letter. This is why despite, the respondent having attached pastors and rehabilitation counselor approval, upon reviewing the rehiring application, the petitioner rejected the application.

The petitioner had a rule in contradiction of re-employing staffs that are fired for workstation delinquency. When looking for a job in America, beware that most of if not all employers set rules and guidelines, state and federal laws that you need to adhere to (Chen, 2015). And if you feel discriminated at your workplace, you have a right to take the matter to court with the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC). Thus the respondent indicated the petitioner had not given him a reason why he has not been hired. However, he supposed he had been victimized in contradiction of desecration.

Legislative History

The legislative history shows that the employer abstained from contemplating the American with Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA), where an employee was terminated for illegal drug use, under the no-rehire policy. That history, as well as the plain language of ADA, prohibits prejudice based on skin color, gender, originality, faith, and reprisal (Beauraina & Mascleta, 2016). The legislative discusses disparate-treatment asserts in the situation of the age prejudice in occupation under Act of 1967. The obligation in a disparate treatment event -determined by if the threatened attribute drove the company's judgment.

While, disparate-impact asserts, engage hiring policies that are facially unbiased in their management of diverse assemblies but then again they also affect one particular assembly than the other and cannot be vindicated by commercial need (Susskinda et al., 2014). In this case, noting that the petitioner's policy of not rehiring employees when had been fired due to misconduct, denies the respondent a chance to build himself despite his successful rehabilitation, it can be treated as inapplicable to disparate treatment claim. As such the petitioner policy is illegitimate and discriminatory.

Current Legal Authority

The idea of non-discrimination and equal opportunity has been for decades been part America's law. The American with Disabilities Act forbids work discernment in contradiction of competent persons with incapacities as a due to their incapacities (Susskinda et al., 2014). The ADA only shields competent persons with incapacities from discernment acts by the company. In this case, a competent employee with incapacity is a person with an infirmity who, with or without sensible space, can accomplish the elementary purposes of the occupation situation that the person grasps.

The statute defines incapacity as corporeal psychological damage which significantly bounds one or additional of the main life actions, of the person in question, or a history of having such damage. Even though the statue does not define impairment, rules issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 17 shows intellectual damage to include, mental illness brain syndrome, specific learning disabilities and mental and physiological disorder (Chen, 2015).

Today, some courts have upheld that firing someone, or denial of an application for rehire because of workplace behavior casually linked to incapacity establishes refinement as a result of incapacity and disrupts the ADA notwithstanding the accuser does not qualify for the employment (Susskinda et al., 2014). Other courts have supported an employer who terminates an employee contract for behavior casually linked to their incapacities only if the dishonored behavior guidelines are work-connected and reliable with commercial need.

The ADA forbids unfairness as a result of incapacity and describes unfairness in disparate treatment, lack of provision of sensible housings and disparate impact ways. Disparate treatment happens when a boss handles an incapacitated individual contrarily from other employees as a result of an endangered peculiarity such as incapacity. The accuser should demonstrate that a forbidden feature really inspired the petitioner's decision (Beauraina & Mascleta, 2016). Under Title V11, not unless the very narrow bona fide occupational qualification defense is satisfied, employment decisions based on a threatened trait such as originality or gender are prohibited. Failing to offer sensible accommodations, the ADA includes in the definition of discrimination, not making reasonable accommodations to the recognized bodily or psychological limits of an else competent person with an incapacity which is a candidate or worker.

The two statutes references to qualification standards are more popular, however: the direct threat provision and the provision regarding the unlawful use of drugs and liquor. The ADA builds a defense for an act under a requirement principle, portrayed to be business-linked and steady with occupation need (Beauraina & Mascleta, 2016). It further provides that such a requirement principle could include an obligation that a person in question can be a risk to the wellbeing or security of other persons in the workstation.

The ADA also asserts that a boss may hold a staff who involves in the unlawful use of drugs or who uses narcotic drinks to similar qualifications ethics for occupation or work presentation and conduct that such being clutched other staffs, even if any unacceptable presentation is connected to the drug use or narcotic use of such worker.

According to the statute any employee presently involved in the unlawful use of drugs, cannot qualify as a person with incapacity if the boss takes action on the foundation of drug and alcohol usage. However, employees who have formerly been involved in the usage of the unlawful drug but are reformed can qualify as individuals with disabilities under the Act, 9. ADA indicates alcoholism is impairment (Beauraina & Mascleta, 2016). Courts have held that alcoholism can be considered restrictive the main life action of a person, and thus such an individual can be considered to be disabled. Recovering drug addicts are also considered to be disabled within the meaning of the statute. Basically, individuals who are alcoholics or are addicted to drugs sometimes engage in conduct that employers find objectionable and that is causally connected to their disabilities.

Finally, the Supreme Court considers an individual's impairment in its corrected state in deciding if considerably bounds the main life action. And if meditation corrects an individual's impairment, the impairment is no longer considered as a disability, and an employer is free to discriminate against the individual based on that impairment.

Case Arguments

The petitioner argued that she rejected the respondent's application on the merit of the company principle in contradiction of re-employing staffs that were fired for workstation misbehavior. In particular, she affirmed that she was unaware that the respondent had a history of the drug when she decided to reject the application.

On the other hand, the accused custody of discernment designated that supplicant had not informed him why he had not been re-hired; however, the respondent had been victimized contrary to abuse of the ADA. The supplicant further argued that ADA precisely frees from shielding people presently involved in the unlawful drugs. Further, the petitioner argued that respondent application was denied on his demonstration drug usage in previous employment and the whole absence of proof showing fruitful drug reintegration (Susskinda et al., 2014). The company maintained that it had a lawfully to reject or re-employ staffs dismissed for defilement of business guidelines and principles. The respondent submitted an employment application letter as evidence.

The respondent then proceeded to argue that the business denied him a re-hire based on his history of a company of drug habit or as a result of being labeled drug addict. Responding to the supplicant's argument he contended that if the business really practiced an unbiased no-reemployment rule, the supplicant had still dishonored the ADA since such a rule had a dissimilar influence.

Based on the case, the respondent can be said to have a stronger argument than the petitioner. The respondent had a clear understanding of elements of a case of discrimination-disparate treatment and disparate claim- and their application to this case. The basis of this case is discrimination and violation of ADA (Chen, 2015). The respondent proofed having a record of impairment and based his rejection of rehiring on ADA. He questions the company policy, which is lawful, had still dishonored the ADA as such a rule had a dissimilar impression.

The petitioner despite understanding the company rights failed to build his arguments, on the fundamental elements of employment discrimination. The court considers drug addicts and those recovering as people with disabilities (Beauraina & Mascleta, 2016). Thus by the time the company fired the accuser, he was considered as disabled and had not been fired on any misconduct. Hence it was important to argue on disparate treatment basics. The petitioner failed to disagree that plaintiff was incapacitated when he was dismissed from the company and thus a record of disability existed.

Recommendations to SCOTUS, Exemptions and Future Review

SCOTUS should focus on assumptions, ADA violation and evidence requirement for discrimination. An employment decision made by an employer could be unfair, and not unlawful. An employment decision can also be based on poor communication or false (Beauraina & Mascleta, 2016). In such a case, there should be other extra, self-governing issue which can be cited so as to prove th...