Denial of permit to future methadone clinic violated ADA and Rehabilitation Act

Law Reporter, Dec 2002

MX Group, Inc. v. City, 293 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 2002).

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held a city's denial of a zoning permit to a methadone clinic violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. sec sec 12131 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. sec sec 701 et seq.

Here, a city denied a zoning permit to a group seeking to establish a methadone clinic in the city to treat individuals addicted to drugs. The group sued the city, alleging it violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act by discriminating against plaintiff because of its association with individuals who are addicted to drugs. The trial court found in favor of plaintiff.

Affirming, the Sixth Circuit rejected defendant's argument that plaintiff lacks standing to sue under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act because there was no individualized inquiry into whether at least one of its clients was disabled. Citing case law, the court noted that Congress expressly provided that discrimination under the ADA includes conduct directed at an entity based on its relationship with individuals with disabilities. This provision was intended to ensure that entities providing professional services to persons with disabilities are not subjected to discrimination.

The court also rejected defendant's argument that plaintiff still lacks standing because it failed to join a client or potential client of the clinic. Even without joining a clientwhich plaintiff cannot do because defendant foreclosed it from opening the clinic altogether-plaintiff has submitted sufficient proof that its potential clients qualify as disabled under the ADA, the court said.

An individual is considered disabled under the ADA, the court explained, if he or she has a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. Such major life activities include caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, and working. Here, there was ample evidence that persons addicted to drugs are impaired in their abilities to parent, work, stay out of jail, and function in everyday life. In addition, the court noted that Congress itself has included recovering drug addicts under the protection of the ADA, recognizing that well after such individuals have recovered from their chemical dependency, they may still face discrimination.

Moreover, the court found that defendant itself regarded plaintiff's potential clients as disabled. The court rejected defendant's argument that, to the extent it discriminated against plaintiffs potential clients, that discrimination was based on fear of criminal activity. One of the purposes of the ADA, the court explained, is to prevent discrimination against those regarded as being disabled. Thus, a person who is denied services because of fears or stereotypes associated with disabilities would be covered under the ADA regardless of whether or not the person's condition would be considered a disability. Because defendant's discrimination was based on unfounded fears and stereotypes that plaintiff's potential clients, as recovering drug addicts, would attract increased drug activity, there was a violation of the ADA.

Plaintiff's Counsel

David E. Davidson, Covington, Ky.

William C. Oldfield, Covington, Ky.