Cite as: 540 U. S. 44 (2003)
Opinion of the Court
terminated for violating workplace conduct rules. If petitioner did indeed apply a neutral, generally applicable no-rehire policy in rejecting respondent's application, petitioner's decision not to rehire respondent can, in no way, be said to have been motivated by respondent's disability.
The Court of Appeals rejected petitioner's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for refusing to rehire respondent because it "serves to bar the re-employment of a drug addict despite his successful rehabilitation." 298 F. 3d, at 1036- 1037. We hold that such an analysis is inapplicable to a disparate-treatment claim. Once respondent had made a prima facie showing of discrimination, the next question for the Court of Appeals was whether petitioner offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions so as to demonstrate that its actions were not motivated by respondent's disability. To the extent that the Court of Appeals strayed from this task by considering not only discriminatory intent but also discriminatory impact, we vacate its judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Souter took no part in the decision of this case. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
55
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Last modified: October 4, 2007