District Court of New Jersey Dismisses Discrimination Claims Brought by Outpatient Opioid Facility

This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.

Affinity Healthcare Group Voorhees, LLC works to provide a range of outpatient treatment services to individuals suffering from opioid use disorder. Affinity’s treatment options for a particular patient may include medication-assisted treatment, such as dispensing an approved opioid agonist treatment medication like methadone or buprenorphine. This case arose after Plaintiffs were ultimately unsuccessful in obtaining the requisite local zoning approvals to operate an opioid treatment program in a leased facility at 200 West Somerdale Road in the Township of Voorhees, New Jersey.

Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants engaged in intentional discrimination on the basis of disability in two main respects:: by “imposing discriminatory procedures, including requiring a change of use review application and a public hearing” when such procedures were not required of other property owners and tenants operating within the Township’s O-1 zoning district or of other operators of outpatient healthcare facilities “serving both disabled and non-disabled persons.”; and that “the hearing record establishes that the Board members, the Board’s professionals, and the general public, manifested discriminatory animus against persons in recovery sufficient to demonstrate evidence of intentional discrimination against Plaintiffs.” Here, the court found the record reflected that Defendants had persuasively articulated nondiscriminatory reasons for the denial of Plaintiffs’ application. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ proposed use for its leased facility within the Township’s O-1 zone did not qualify under any of the permitted uses for that zone.

The court further found credible Defendants’ argument that the Township intended the distinction between “medical office” and “medical clinic” for obvious land use reasons. Here, the Township expressly permitted medical clinics—more akin to a hospital or other larger/more commercial medical facility—in at least two other zoning districts in Voorhees. However, medical clinics were not permitted in the transitional and less intensive O-1 zone where Plaintiffs’ leased facility was located, despite the fact a medical office with a less intensive and less commercial use was permitted.

The court next held that the public commentary Plaintiffs challenged as indicative of bias against persons with disabilities was insufficient as Plaintiffs failed to “connect the dots and explain how such comments motivated the Planning Board’s decision, which was limited to land use justifications for denying Plaintiffs’ zoning application”. While Plaintiffs claimed that the Planning Board solicitor should have instructed the board members not to be influenced by any testimony that expressed bias towards persons with disabilities. Plaintiffs’ counsel provided several reminders during the Planning Board hearings that unlawful bias should not impact the Planning Board members in making their decision.

Lastly, Plaintiffs contended that their counsel intentionally acknowledged the Planning Board’s authority to impose a reasonable limitation on the number of patients treated by Plaintiffs at the close of the Planning Board hearings, but their request was unlawfully ignored by the Planning Board. The court found Plaintiffs’ purported request for an accommodation, in terms of patient load or operating hours, was unreasonable as a matter of law as it would require the Township to fundamentally alter in nature the permitted uses of the 0-1 zoning district. Moreover, Plaintiffs conceded that changing the hours of operation would have fundamentally altered their opioid treatment program because their patients need to “acquire their necessary lifesaving medication and still report to a regular 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M jobs.” The court held that this was direct conflict with the land use requirements of the less commercial 0-1 zone. Accordingly, the court found that Plaintiffs did not qualify for the zoning permit for which they applied.

Affinity Healthcare Group Voorhees, LLC v Township of Voorhees, 2022 WL 375482 (D NJ 8/30/2022)