This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Carter G. Phillips, Raytheon Company (petitioner) maintains a policy that permanently bars rehiring employees who are discharged for serious misconduct.
According to Mr. Clement, Raytheon argues that summary judgment is appropriate on the record.
According to Mr. Clement, Raytheon contends that a neutral policy does not constitute disparate treatment on the basis of disability.
Background and question before the Court
Justice O'Connor asked whether the Ninth Circuit’s treatment of the no‑rehire policy was correct under the ADA, whether the employer was entitled to summary judgment, and whether Hernandez raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was denied reemployment because of his past record of drug addiction.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Raytheon Company)
According to Carter G. Phillips, Raytheon’s policy permanently bars rehiring employees discharged for serious misconduct.
According to Mr. Clement, Raytheon argues that summary judgment is appropriate on the record.
According to Mr. Clement, Raytheon maintains that applying a neutral policy does not constitute disparate treatment on the basis of disability.
According to Petitioner, according to the petitioner, Raytheon asserts that the employee’s potential accommodation, qualifications, direct threat, undue hardship, and business necessity are relevant considerations.
Respondent (Joel Hernandez)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice O'Connor asked whether the Ninth Circuit’s treatment of the no‑rehire policy was correct under the ADA.
Justice O'Connor asked whether the employer was entitled to summary judgment.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the employee even knew the policy existed.
Justice Scalia asked what disability would need to be accommodated.
Justice Rehnquist asked whether the weight of the evidence is relevant to summary judgment.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Mr. Clement, summary judgment could be granted for the employer on the record.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 2b1627a631e28403a84c-r1-32a8b1b0c0567bf7.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.