UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE DIVISION THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL NO. 09 CV 1049 (JFM) ) CITY OF BALTIMORE, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 2 III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 3 A. Zoning Process for Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Programs .............................. 3 1. Homes for the Rehabilitation of Non-Bedridden Alcoholics is a Conditional Use Requiring the Approval of the Mayor and City Council .......................................... 4 2. The CO Process Requires Community Approval ..................................................... 5 3. Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Programs May Locate by Attempting to Utilize a Different Land Use Classification that Does Not Refer to Substance Abuse Treatment. ................................................................................................... 10 B. History of the CO Requirement .......................................................................................... 13 C. Community and City Council’s Opposition to Amending CO Requirement ..................... 14 D. City’s Draft Revised Zoning Code Eliminates CO Requirement in Favor of BMZA Approval ............................................................................................................................. 17 E. State Certified Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Programs Pose No Danger to the Community ......................................................................................................................... 18 IV. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 20 A. Summary Judgment Standard ............................................................................................. 20 B. The City’s CO Requirement for “Homes for Non-Beddridden Alcoholics” Violates the ADA as a Matter of Law. ................................................................................................... 20 1. The Americans with Disabilities Act Protects Persons with Disabilities. .............. 21 2. There is No Genuine Dispute of Material Fact That Individuals in Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Programs Are Persons With Disabilities .................. 22 a. The City has conceded that RSATP residents are persons with disabilities. ................................................................................................................... 22 b. Maryland’s regulatory scheme for licensed substance abuse treatment programs effectively requires that RSATP residents have a disability ..... 23 c. Individuals requiring residential substance abuse treatment have a disability per federal case law. .................................................................. 24 i 3. The CO Requirement for RSATPs Violates the ADA Because it is Facially Discriminatory ........................................................................................................ 27 a. Comparable Uses to RSATPs are Permitted to Locate as of Right Under the Zoning Code. ....................................................................................... 29 b. Residential Drug Treatment Programs Do Not Pose a Significant Risk to the Health or Safety of Others .................................................................. 36 4. The CO Requirement Also Violates the ADA Because it is Intentionally Discriminatory ........................................................................................................ 37 a. The CO Requirement is Motivated by Animus Against Individuals in Recovery as Reflected in City Council Members’ and Residents’ Statements in Opposition to Bill 07-0002. ................................................ 38 b. There Is No Legitimate Nondiscriminatory Reason For The CO Requirement .............................................................................................. 43 V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 45 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases A Helping Hand, L.L.C. v. Baltimore Cnty., 515 F.3d 356 (4th Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................................... 24-25, 43 A Helping Hand, L.L.C. v. Baltimore Cnty., No. Civ. A. CCB-02-2568, 2005 WL 2453062 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2005) ............................ 36-38, 41, 43 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) .............................................................................................................................. 20 Bangerter v. Orem City Corp., 46 F.3d 1491 (10th Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................. 27, 43, 45 Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946 (4th Cir. 1984) ................................................................................................................ 20 Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725, 730 (9th Cir. 1999) ....................................................................................... 21, 26-29, 45 Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, No. C 98-2651 SI, 2000 WL 33716782 (N.D. Cal. March 16, 2000) ............................................ 28, 36 Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246 (7th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................................. 25 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) .............................................................................................................................. 20 First Step, Inc. v. City of New London, 247 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D. Conn. 2003) ........................................................................................ 26-27, 42 Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Serv., 283 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................................... 24 Habit Mgmt. v. City of Lynn, 235 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D. Mass. 2002) ............................................................................................... 27, 36 Hispanic Counseling Ctr., Inc. v. Inc. Village of Hempstead, 237 F. Supp. 2d 284 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) ............................................................................................ 25, 27 Horizon House Dev. Servs. Inc. v. Township of Upper Southampton, 804 F. Supp. 683 (E.D. Pa. 1992) ............................................................................................. 37, 39, 41 Hous. Trust v. Dep't of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, 257 F. Supp. 2d 208 (D.D.C. 2003) ...................................................................................................... 30 Human Resource Research and Mgmt. Group, Inc. v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 687 F. Supp. 2d 237 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) ...................................................................................... 25, 33, 34 Innovative Health Sys., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1997).............................................................................................................. 21, 37 Larkin v. Mich. Dep't of Social Servs., 89 F.3d 285 (6th Cir. 1996) ............................................................................................................ 27, 45 MX Group, Inc. v. City of Covington, 293 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 2002) ......................................................................................................... passim iii New Directions Treatment Servs. v. City of Reading, 490 F.3d 293 (3rd Cir. 2007) ......................................................................................................... passim Pathways Psychosocial v. Town of Leonardtown, MD, 133 F. Supp. 2d 772 (D. Md. 2001) ...................................................................................... 37-38, 41-42 Perini Corp. v. Perini Constr., Inc., 915 F.2d 121 (4th Cir. 1990) ................................................................................................................ 20 Potomac Group Home Corp. v. Montgomery County, Md., 823 F. Supp. 1285 (D. Md. 1993) ........................................................................................ 30, 41, 44-45 Project Life, Inc. v. Glendening, 139 F. Supp. 2d 703 (D. Md. 2001) ................................................................................................ 30, 42 Reg’l Econ. Cmty. Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown, 294 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2002)............................................................................................................. passim Smith Berch, Inc. v. Baltimore Cnty., 115 F. Supp. 2d 520 (D. Md. 2000) ...................................................................................................... 44 Start, Inc. v. Baltimore Cnty., 295 F. Supp. 2d 569 (D. Md. 2003) ................................................................................................ 21, 25 Sunrise Dev., Inc. v. Town of Huntington, 62 F. Supp.