This post was authored by Amy Lavine, Esq.
The District Court for the District of New Jersey found a sufficient prima facie showing of disparate impact and failure to make reasonable accommodations in a recent decision involving a drug rehabilitation center. Accordingly, the court granted injunctive relief on the plaintiff’s claims under the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.
The particular zoning decision at issue in 901 Ernston Rd. was the determination that the proposed drug treatment center was not permitted as a “long-term care facility” in the “Public, Recreational, Institutional Municipal and Educational” zone. The court first found that the plaintiff had standing, as it was a service provider for recovering addicts, and it did not fail to exhaust available remedies due to its failure to file an action in lieu of prerogative writs. The court then moved on to the first factor of the preliminary injunction analysis and held that the plaintiff sufficiently articulated irreparable harm based on the denial of treatment to its potential patients and its financial losses incurred in the planning, leasing, and designing of the facility.
Regarding the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits, the court began its discussion by noting that drug and alcohol addiction is considered a handicap in the Third Circuit, and thus the plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated that its claims involved a class of protected individuals. The court next addressed the plaintiff’s contention that it suffered disparate treatment, disparate impact, and a denial of reasonable accommodations based on the defendants’ “not in my backyard” or NIMBY discrimination. Although the board seemed to acknowledge that the facility would help address the serious public health problems caused by the opioid epidemic, the court nevertheless agreed with the plaintiff that the board acted based primarily on NIMBY concerns. As the court explained, “comments by Defendant Board members reflected potential animus towards recovering addicts and associations with criminal behavior,” and their decision ultimately relied more on fear than on the evidence in the record. Accordingly, the court held that the plaintiff presented a sufficient prima facie case of discriminatory treatment and intent that would likely succeed on the merits.
The court also agreed that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of discriminatory impact insofar as the board’s decision affected its potential patients differently than residents at a nursing home that had been approved as a “long-term care facility.” While the court also agreed that the plaintiff’s facility could meet the definition provided for “long-term care facilities,” however, it also found that the board raised plausible non-discriminatory reasons for classifying the drug rehabilitation facilities differently than nursing homes, and thus the plaintiff did not prove a likelihood of success on its disparate impact claim.
As to the plaintiff’s reasonable accommodation challenge, the court found that the evidence weighed in favor of the plaintiff, because a variance could be granted subject to reasonable conditions that would limit the facility’s negative impacts. Moreover, the defendants failed to show that a variance would be unreasonable, as there would be only minor changes to the property’s physical footprint and there was no evidence that approving the application would result in additional administrative work or the need for increased municipal services. Instead, the court explained, “the key rationale for denial articulated by Defendant Board members emphasized safety concerns and touched on issues of understaffing, industry self-regulation, and decreased home values. These do not represent undue burdens placed on either Defendant Board or Borough to accommodate a variance….”
The court concluded its analysis by noting that the balance of equities and public interest favored granting injunctive relief given that the proposed facility would not result in any harm to the defendant and because allowing the facility would benefit the public by providing important treatment services for patients suffering from drug and alcohol addictions.
901 Ernston Rd. v. Borough of Sayre Ville Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 2018 WL 2176175 (D.N.J. 5/11/18).
Leave a Reply