Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment v. City of Antioch
SimpleOriginal

Summary

In this 1999 case the Ninth Circuit struck down a city zoning denial for a methadone clinic, finding Antioch’s actions violated the ADA and FHA by discriminating against recovering addicts seeking treatment services.

1999 | Federal Juristiction

Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment v. City of Antioch

Keywords 1999 case; Ninth Circuit; city zoning; methadone clinic; Antioch; ADA; FHA; discriminating; recovering addicts; treatment services
Open Case as PDF

Summary

In a 1999 legal proceeding, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a municipal zoning decision made by the city of Antioch, which had prohibited the establishment of a methadone clinic. The court concluded that Antioch's actions constituted violations of both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA). This determination was based on evidence indicating that the city had discriminated against individuals in recovery who were seeking access to treatment services.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

In a 1999 ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a city's decision to deny zoning for a methadone clinic. The court concluded that the city of Antioch's conduct constituted a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA), thereby discriminating against individuals in recovery who were seeking access to treatment services.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

In a 1999 legal case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a city's decision to deny a zoning permit for a methadone clinic. The court determined that the city of Antioch had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by unfairly treating recovering addicts who were seeking treatment services.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

In 1999, a court ruled against the city of Antioch. The city had tried to stop a clinic that helps people get well from drug problems. The court said Antioch's actions broke two laws, called the ADA and FHA. This was because the city treated people unfairly who were seeking help to recover.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

179 F.3d 725 (1999)

Highlights