Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2003

Home

208 Page 2 -- March I0, 2003 Damages -- Proposed drug treatment center wins over $1 million from city Claims zoning board decision viOlated civil rights ]lXI-DIANA (01/30/03) -- Discovery House Inc. was a for-profit corporation that operated substance abuse clinics in three states. Discovery wanted to open a methadone distribution facility in Indianapolis. A Department of Metropolitan Development employee told Discovery zon-. ing regulations would allow the facility in Discovery's chosen site because the site was in an area zoned for doctors' offices and hospitals. However, the Metro- ix)limn Board of Zoning Appeals later denied the zoning request. Discovery sued for monetary damages in federal court, ctaLm__ing the board violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act in de- nying the zoning request. The court ruled in favor of Discovery. Discovery was awarded over $1 million. The damages were awarded for lost profits during the time between the board's denial and the court's reversal. The board appealed, claiming Discovery couldn't sue the board for civil rights violations. DECISION: Reversed. Discovery should not have been awarded monetary damages. Although the damages indirectly benefited Discovery's clients, they pri- marily benefited Discovery's for-profit business. There was a lack of evidence of discriminatory intent, in the board's deci- sion. The board found no evidence the facility was a hospital or healthcare institution. While a physician would be designated as medical director of the facility, that pdrson would onlY be present on a part-time basis/No other metha- done distribution facilities had been approved in similarly zoned areas. In fact, the two other methadone facilities in Indianapolis were in areas zoned for com~ mercial uses, not medical ones. The board had a rational basis for determining Discovery's facility was not an office for physicians, dentists, or other professionals deahng with public health. It was also rational to conclude the facility was not a pharmacY and did not offer hospital related services. Citation: Discovery House Inc. v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis, 7th' U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 02-2326 (2003): The 7th Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois; Indiana, and Wisconsin. see also: Esrnail v. Macrane, 53 E3d 176 (1.995). see also: City of CIeburne v. Cleburne Living Center Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985). Now RENEW your subscription ONLINE at www.quinlan.com '1 I I I I I I I .I I I I I I I I I I I