657 F.3d 762
9th Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiff Santiago Lopez, a recovering drug addict, applied to be a longshoreman and was disqualified after a positive drug test under PMA's 'one-strike rule.'
- The one-strike rule permanently excludes any applicant who tests positive for drug or alcohol use during pre-employment screening, with at least seven days’ notice for the drug test.
- Lopez had tested positive in 1997 due to past addiction; he reapplied in 2004 after achieving sobriety, but was again rejected under the rule.
- Lopez sued PMA and unions under the ADA and FEHA, alleging disparate treatment and disparate impact based on disability status (rehabilitated drug addiction).
- The district court granted summary judgment to PMA, and Lopez appeals, arguing the rule targets recovering addicts and disparately impacts them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the one-strike rule discriminate against recovering addicts (disparate treatment)? | Lopez argues the rule facially and in practice targets recovering addicts. | Rule is neutral and bars drug use at time of test, not disability status. | No; rule is neutral and does not target disabled individuals; summary judgment affirmed on disparate treatment. |
| Was PMA's one-strike rule adopted with discriminatory purpose? | Record shows intentional exclusion of recovering addicts. | Policy arose from safety concerns and industry-wide need to reduce drug-related incidents. | No; record shows legitimate safety rationale and lack of evidence of discriminatory purpose; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Does Lopez have a triable disparate impact claim against the one-strike rule? | The rule disproportionately screens out recovering addicts and thus violates the ADA/FEHA. | Plaintiff failed to prove disproportionate impact with evidence tying the rule to minority of recovering addicts in the labor market. | No; plaintiff failed to produce evidence of disproportionate impact; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (U.S. 2003) (neutral, nondiscriminatory reason can justify employment decisions related to misconduct)
- Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (U.S. 1993) (discrete disability-based decisions require more than correlation with disability)
- Hernandez v. Hughes Missile Sys. Co., 362 F.3d 564 (9th Cir. 2004) (evidence of past addiction can be material to whether an employer discriminated in rehiring)
- Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc; evidence at summary judgment required beyond allegations)
- Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1977) (disparate impact framework; require evidence of impact on protected class)
- Pottenger v. Potlatch Corp., 329 F.3d 740 (9th Cir. 2003) (statistical evidence not always required for ADA disparate impact)