In 2001, Helping Hand proposed opening a clinic at a site then being used for a medical office. Community opposition to the proposed use soon arose. The county councilman representing the district where the clinic would be located took up the neighbors’ cause. He introduced a bill in early 2002 creating a new use category, “state-licensed medical clinics,” which included drug-abuse treatment centers. The bill provided that such clinics could no longer operate as a matter of right in commercial zones, but would have to obtain a special exception after a public hearing. The bill also required such clinics to be at least 750 feet from the nearest residence.
Helping Hand continued to obtain the necessary federal, state and local permits. After some delay, the county issued an occupancy permit April 15, 2002. Later that day, the council enacted the proposed zoning amendment and the county executive signed it the next morning. The county threatened to fine the clinic $200 a day if it continued operating. Meanwhile, the county issued a variance to the only other facility to which the new law applied, a dialysis center, permitting it to open without meeting the requirements of the new law.
Helping Hand sued in federal court, claiming violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The trial judge granted judgment as a matter of law on the ADA claims, and the jury entered a verdict in favor of the clinic on its due process claims. On appeal, the county argued among other things, that the district court wrongly ruled the clinic had established its clients were regarded as disabled under the ADA.
The Court of Appeals noted that there is no question that drug addiction is an impairment under the ADA. However, having an impairment is not enough to make one disabled for ADA purposes. The claimant has to show that drug addiction is regarded as substantially limiting one or more major life activities, or that addiction actually did limit one or more major life activities because of the attitudes of others towards addiction, the court said. The record did contain substantial evidence that members of the communityregarded the clinic’s clients as criminals and generally undesirable neighbors, and that this perception tracked the stigma that often attaches to recovering drug addicts. However, that did not necessarily mean they were seen as significantly impaired in their ability to work, learn, care for themselves or interact with others. The jury could reasonably infer that the clinic’s clients were impaired in their ability to maintain legitimate employment, but it could also reasonably infer that the clients were not significantly impaired in their ability to work or hold a job. While some membersof the community may have regarded the clients as disabled, the record did not establish that a reasonable jury could only infer that this perception was widespread. Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the county, the court said the trial court should not have granted judgment as a matter of law on that issue.
Turning to the due process claim, the court noted the county argued the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that the clinic had a property interest in continuing to operate at its location. Under Maryland law, to have a vested right in an existing use, the owner must have a permit or occupancy certificate and must proceed to exercise that permit so that the neighborhood knows the land is being devoted to that particular use, the court said. As of April 15, 2002, the clinic had satisfied both prongs of the vested rights test. It had a validly issued permit, and the neighborhood certainly was aware of its intended use of the property. The court also rejected the county’s claim that the trial court’s instruction on the standard for establishing a substantive due process claim was erroneous. The instruction tracked almost word for word the language the U.S. Supreme Court used in Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 US 365, and has been cited with approval on numerous occasions since, the court said. While some cases use a slightly different formulation of the standard, one the county preferred, the trial court did not commit error by refusing to grant that requested instruction even if it was a proper statement of the law. The substance of the instruction was covered by the charge the trial court gave the jury, it concluded. Because of the error, the court said a new trial is necessary on the ADA claims, if the clinic chooses to pursue them. Meanwhile, the county has announced it intends to seek review of the due process ruling by the full circuit court.
A Helping Hand v. Baltimore County, MD, 2008 WL 366780 (C.A. 4 (2/12/2008)).
The opinion can also be accessed at: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/062026.P.pdf
Thanks to James Lawlor for bringing this case to my attention in the February 15, 2008 Land Use Legal Report. For subscription information contact Jim at: landlaw@verizon.net
Categories:
