1. Raytheon Company v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44; No. 02—749. Argued on October 8, 2003 and decided on December 2, 2003 on disparate treatment. We can define it, disparate impact occurs “when people are treated differently, with respect to conditions of employment, because of their race, color, sex, national origin, religion , their age or a mental or physical disability. » Facts: In the above case, employee Joel Hernandez tested positive for cocaine. Fearing he would be fired, he admitted that his behavior violated the Raytheon company's rules of workplace conduct and was obviously pressured to leave his job. Furthermore, the reason for the employee's resignation was also based on the idea that if he had not resigned, it would be the petitioner who would end up firing him from his job. After more than two years of rehabilitation, petitioner requested to be rehired, alleging in his application that the following individuals had already hired him. In his application, he also included letters from his pastor about his active participation in church and from an Alcoholics Anonymous counselor about his regular visits and attendance at meetings and his immediate recovery. When a human resources employee of the petitioner reviewed Hernandez's application, she subsequently rejected his application on the grounds that the petitioner had a policy prohibiting the rehiring of employees terminated for wrongdoing in the workplace. According to the HR employee, she did not know that this employee was a former drug addict when she rejected his application. Following this development, Hernandez filed a lawsuit and filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), claiming that his rights had been violated under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Therefore, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) gave the defendant the green light and issued a right to sue letter as well as the right to file an ADA action. Following this, respondent filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), alleging that petitioner failed to comply with his request because he had a history of substance abuse and/or because he was previously known to be a drug user. . On the other hand, the petitioner responded by filing a motion for summary judgment. This gave rise to respondent's alternative argument that in the event petitioner sought a neutral no-rehire policy in his case, it was still sufficient to constitute a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA ) due to the disparate impact of this policy..