ADA Protection Will Not Be Extended to Drug Addicts Unless They Are Significantly Impaired in Major Life Activity

A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore County, Md, 525 F.3d 356 (4th Cir., Feb. 12, 2008)

In A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore County, Md, A Helping Hand, a methadone treatment facility, brought a discrimination action against Baltimore County, Maryland, alleging that a new county ordinance that operated to prevent the clinic from operating violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA").

In November 2001, A Helping Hand representative contacted the Baltimore County Department of Permits to discuss opening a private, for-profit Helping Hand methadone clinic. He was informed that a drug addition counseling and treatment center was permitted under the zoning ordinances applied for the site. The representative proceeded to procure a lease for the property and to apply for the required federal and state permits and certifications.

In April 2002, in response to pressure from the community regarding the proposed facility, a city councilman introduced a bill (the "Bill") that would create a new zoning category for state-licensed medical clinics, including drug abuse treatment centers. The Bill provided that these "state-licensed medical clinics" could no longer operate as a matter of right in commercial zones. Instead, such clinics could only operate in commercial zones by "special exception." The Bill also required such clinics to participate in a public hearing before receiving any permit. Additionally, the Bill required such clinics to be located at least 750 feet from the nearest residence.

The Bill was passed on April 15, 2002, the same day A Helping Hand opened its doors for operation. The County immediately moved to enforce the new zoning laws against A Helping Hand. A Helping Hand responded by filing suit against Baltimore County, alleging that the county participated in intentional discrimination against drug addicts, and crafted a law that created a disparate impact, in violation of the ADA and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. In evaluating A Helping Hand's discrimination claims, Judge Blake, of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, noted that the Bill was unusual in several respects. First, the Bill was passed only fifteen days after its initial introduction, in contrast to the one to two month process usually used by County officials seeking to pass new legislation. Moreover, the County Council voted to make the Bill effective on its day of passage, rather waiting the usual forty-five days after a bill is passed. On these facts, the District Court found that Baltimore County violated the ADA, and entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of A Helping Hand. Baltimore County appealed.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit noted that, to be eligible for ADA protection, an individual must be disabled within the meaning of the act. The ADA defines "disability" as "(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or© being regarded as having such an impairment [whether one actually has an impairment or not]." The court stated that, although having a drug addiction constitutes an impairment under the ADA, merely having an impairment does not make one disabled within the meaning of the ADA. To prove that an individual is disabled, it must be shown that his impairment substantially interferes with major life activities, including, but not limited to, an individual's ability to work, learn, sleep, eat, interact with others, and care for oneself. The court concluded that an individual who is addicted to drugs can still maintain legitimate employment and social interactions; thus, it was error for the District Court to conclude as a matter of law that the clients of A Helping Hand were disabled under the ADA. The appellate court remanded the case for a new trial.

In this case, the appellate court rejected the notion that methadone addicts are per se significantly impaired in one or more major life activities, and therefore they are not per se disabled. By reversing the trial court's holding, the appellate court made clear that Plaintiffs alleging discrimination against drug addicts under the ADA must present significant evidence tending to show that drug addicts or alcoholics cannot learn, interact with others, or care for themselves. In Maryland, discrimination law requires more evidence of a drug addiction to show a significant impairment with an individual's major life activities.