Justices to Rule on Reservists’ Job Leaves : Supreme Court: At issue is lengthy, ‘unreasonable’ time off for training. Current Persian Gulf active duty absences would not be affected.

Acting in a case that could shape the future health of the military reserves, the Supreme Court said Tuesday that it would decide whether workers have an absolute right to leave their jobs for lengthy training as reservists.

The decision, due next year, will not affect the nearly 200,000 reservists called up to active duty because of the Persian Gulf War. Federal law guarantees reservists ordered to active duty the right to return to jobs without penalty.

The government says that the same rules apply to reservists who request a leave to undergo training of any length.

But several federal courts have ruled that an employer can turn down a request for training leave that is “unreasonable.” Employers may reject the leave request if they would suffer greatly because of the employee’s absence, according to federal appeals courts in Atlanta, Philadelphia and New Orleans.

Unless overturned, these decisions will weaken the reserve system, U.S. attorneys told the high court. Reservists could lose their right to regular training and the military could lose the services of valuable personnel, they said.

Last fall’s military buildup in the Persian Gulf illustrated the new significance of the reserves. Without a draft, the Pentagon has relied on a military force made up of volunteers, backed up increasingly by reservists.

A Pentagon spokesman said that about 83,000 of the 527,000 troops in the Gulf are members of the Reserve or National Guard. In addition, more than 100,000 other reservists have been called up to serve in the United States to perform duties normally left to full-time military personnel.

The case to be heard by the court concerns a security manager for an Alabama hospital. In 1987, William King asked for a three-year leave of absence to serve in a top position with the state National Guard.

“This is a worst case situation,” said Harry Puente-Duany, a spokesman for the Labor Department’s veterans reemployment and training division. Most reservists are required to undergo two weeks of training each year.

St. Vincent’s Hospital, King’s employer, turned down his request for the leave. The federal appeals court in Atlanta upheld that decision, calling King’s request “unreasonable.”

But the Justice Department argued that the law says nothing about a request being reasonable. Indeed, the Veterans’ Reemployment Rights Act simply says that a member of the reserves “shall upon request be granted a leave of absence by such person’s employer for the period required to perform active duty for training.” Moreover, the act says that such a leave should not affect the employee’s “seniority, status, pay and vacation.”

The case (King vs. St. Vincent’s Hospital, 90-829) will be heard in October.

In other actions, the court:

--Agreed to decide the constitutionality of the so-called “Son of Sam” laws. At least 30 states, including California, have enacted laws that seek to prevent a criminal from profiting from his crimes. They arose in 1977 after reports that New York serial killer David Berkowitz, dubbed “Son of Sam,” was about to sign a lucrative book contract to describe his crimes. Under the New York law, any money received by a criminal from a book or movie rights is put into an escrow fund. Victims and their families can then seek damages from the fund via a court order. The case under appeal is Simon & Schuster vs. New York State Crime Victims Board, 90-1059.

--Let stand a drug testing requirement affecting 538,000 aviation industry employees (Bluestein vs. Skinner, 90-735). Under Federal Aviation Administration rules, half of these employees are to get unscheduled drug tests each year. Those who get tested every other year include pilots, flight attendants, maintenance workers, air traffic controllers and security personnel.

--Agreed to decide whether a school district under desegregation orders must continue under court supervision if it has failed to fully desegregate its faculty. This question was one of several that the court failed to answer last month in an Oklahoma City case which called for an end to court-ordered desegregation.

In that 5-3 decision, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that desegregation orders were “temporary measures” when ordered more than a decade ago and should be ended when a district has made a “good faith” effort to comply. However, he did not define what constituted a “good faith” effort and did not give a timetable to end such efforts.

Court sources said that Rehnquist used deliberately vague language to gain the vote of Justice Byron R. White, who refused to go along with a ruling completely abandoning desegregation.

What happens next probably depends on Justice David H. Souter, who joined the court after the Oklahoma City case was heard. If he sides with Rehnquist, the court could go further in limiting desegregation. The case (Freeman vs. Pitts, 89-1290), involving a district in DeKalb County, Ga., will be heard in October.

--Souter issued his first opinion for the court, a unanimous ruling granting a new trial to a Georgia Death Row inmate. Prosecutors removed nine of 10 black potential jurors for the trial of James Ford, who is black. That move violated a 1986 court ruling that banned a pattern of racial discrimination in selecting jurors, Souter said. By tradition, a new justice writes his first opinion in a unanimous and noncontroversial decision.

--Let stand a California tax on money collected by the Hari Krishnas through the distribution of books and pamphlets. Last year the justices ruled that the state could impose a tax on Bibles and other religious literature sold by TV evangelist Jimmy Swaggart.