## Facts

- MX Group, Inc. sought to open an outpatient methadone treatment clinic for opiate-dependent individuals in Covington, Kentucky.
- MX Group leased space in a mixed-use condominium building and applied for a zoning permit; the city zoning administrator initially approved the clinic as a permitted use.
- After residents objected, the Covington Board of Adjustment held a public hearing where opponents asserted the clinic would increase crime, but provided no empirical support.
- The Board overturned the administrator’s approval and revoked MX Group’s zoning permit.
- MX Group pursued an alternative location; the city solicitor then took the position that a methadone clinic was not a permitted use in any zone in the city.
- The City amended its zoning ordinance to bar methadone clinics from operating anywhere in Covington.
- MX Group sued under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (and asserted constitutional claims), alleging the zoning actions were motivated by hostility toward its patients and thus constituted association-based disability discrimination.
- After a bench trial, the district court found MX Group’s prospective patients were individuals with disabilities, found discrimination based on MX Group’s association with those individuals, and entered injunctive relief; defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether individuals in or seeking methadone treatment for opiate addiction qualify as individuals with disabilities under Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, notwithstanding the statutory exclusion for current illegal drug use.
2. Whether a municipality violates the ADA and Rehabilitation Act by using zoning permitting decisions and ordinance amendments to exclude a methadone clinic because of community animus toward recovering drug addicts, thereby discriminating against an entity associated with such individuals.
3. Whether the district court’s findings of discriminatory intent and causation were clearly erroneous, and whether the injunction was a proper remedy.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment for MX Group on the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims.
- The court held that opiate addiction may constitute a disability when it substantially limits major life activities, and individuals in treatment are protected unless excluded as current illegal drug users.
- The court held that municipal zoning and land-use decisions are covered “services, programs, or activities” of a public entity under Title II.
- The court held that MX Group could pursue an association-discrimination theory and had standing because it suffered concrete injury from the permit revocation and ordinance change.
- The court upheld the district court’s finding that the permit revocation and subsequent ordinance amendment were motivated by hostility and stereotypes about methadone patients rather than legitimate zoning criteria.
- The court upheld the injunction requiring appropriate zoning approvals and barring enforcement of the discriminatory ordinance against MX Group.

## Legal Principles

- Title II of the ADA applies to public entities’ zoning and land-use decisions; those powers may not be administered in a manner that excludes or burdens persons because of disability.
- Drug addiction can qualify as a disability under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act; protection extends to individuals in treatment or recovery, subject to the exclusion for current illegal drug use.
- The ADA permits claims by entities injured because a public entity acted against them due to their association with individuals with disabilities.
- Discriminatory intent in zoning may be inferred from the sequence of events, decisionmaker responses to community hostility, and reliance on unsupported fears or stereotypes.
- Rehabilitation Act analysis generally tracks Title II analysis where the public entity receives federal financial assistance.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that Covington violated Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by revoking a methadone clinic’s permit and changing zoning rules to exclude the clinic based on community hostility toward recovering drug addicts, and it affirmed injunctive relief protecting the provider from those discriminatory actions.


MX Grp., Inc. v. City of Covington, 293 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 2002)