Addiction Specialists, Inc. v. Township of Hampton
SimpleOriginal

Summary

In this 2005 case the Third Circuit held Hampton’s zoning scheme impermissibly discriminated under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act by effectively excluding a methadone treatment center, remanding for injunctive relief.

2005 | Federal Juristiction

Addiction Specialists, Inc. v. Township of Hampton

Keywords 2005 case; Third Circuit; Hampton; zoning scheme; ADA; Rehabilitation Act; discriminated; methadone treatment center; excluding; injunctive relief
Open Case as PDF

Summary

In a 2005 ruling, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Hampton's zoning regulations constituted unlawful discrimination under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. This discrimination arose from the regulations' effective exclusion of a methadone treatment facility. Consequently, the case was returned to a lower court for the implementation of injunctive relief.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

In 2005, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Hampton's zoning regulations unfairly discriminated. The court found that these regulations violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act by effectively blocking a methadone treatment center. Consequently, the case was returned to a lower court to order appropriate remedies.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

In 2005, the Third Circuit court ruled on a case involving Hampton. The court determined that Hampton's zoning rules unfairly discriminated against a methadone treatment center. These rules effectively prevented the center from operating. The court found that this action violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The case was then sent back to a lower court to order Hampton to correct the discrimination.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

In 2005, a court made an important decision. This court said that the town of Hampton had land rules that were unfair. These rules stopped a place that helps people with drug addiction from opening. The court found this broke two laws, the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The case was sent back to a lower court to make sure Hampton changed its rules to be fair.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

411 F.3d 399 (2005)

Highlights