New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer

AUTHORITY TRANSIT YORK CITY NEW v. et al. BEAZER et al. 21, 1979 March 6, 1978 Decided Argued December 77-1427.

No. J., BuRGER, C. Court, in opinion SteveNS, J., delivered J., filed Powell, joined. JJ., Stewart, Blackmun, RehNquist, post, p. 594. BreN- concurring part dissenting part, opinion an a dis- J., filed White, dissenting statement, post, p. NAN, J., 597. filed p. J., joined, post, senting opinion, in which Marshall, on her petitioners. for With argued the cause Joan Offner Cassidy. Helen R. Al-phonse E. D’Ambrose and briefs were the respondents. for Greenberg M. the cause argued Deborah Meltsner, Balber, Michael her on brief Eric D. With the were Mark Morril.* and C. Court. of the delivered the opinion

Mr. Justice Stevens employ Authority City New York refuses The Transit found that persons who use The District Court methadone. Four- the Protection Clause policy Equal violates also court subsequent In a opinion, teenth Amendment. Rights Act violates Title Civil policy held VII reaching the without Appeals The Court affirmed from the by those courts statutory question. departure The and con- statutory procedure normally addressing followed E. for American Public Huie and David Fox filed a brief *W. Stell Assn, urging as amicus curiae reversal. Transit Alco- Robert B. filed a brief the National Association of State Stites Drug urging Abuse as amicus curiae affirmance. Directors hol P. filed brief for the Stuart Herman Western Law Center Handicapped as amicus curiae. questions case,

stitutional the same as well concern that as these important questions merits of had been decided led erroneously, us to certiorari.1 904. We grant 438 U. S. now reverse. operates subway system Transit Authority (TA)

The City. bus lines employs certain in New York It about 47,000 many perhaps of whom persons, employed most—are — in positions public. danger involve to themselves or to 12,300 subway towermen, For some example, motormen, are operators. or bus found that conductors, District Court jobs per- are unusual be these attended hazards and must by “persons competence.” formed maximum alertness and 1975). Supp. jobs, other (SDNY Certain F. equipment, operating handling high-voltage such as cranes “safety while still sensitive,” also considered “critical” potentially though “noncritical,” others, classified transportation important impact operation overall system.2 general against employing enforces a

TA provides: Rule 19 This Court’s governing on certiorari review “Considerations right, of sound a matter of but review on writ of certiorari is not “1. A special and judicial discretion, granted there are and will be where controlling nor following, while neither important therefor. The reasons reasons fully discretion, character of measuring the court’s indicate the considered: which wih be question in . decided a federal “(b) appeals a court of . . has Where de- court; so far of this or has

way applicable with decisions in conflict judicial or so proceedings, accepted course of parted and usual from court, an exer- departure by call for a lower as to such a far sanctioned supervision.” power of cise this court’s maintenance 13,400 are involved in the employees Thus, about 5,600 work buses, track, tunnels, Another subway cars, and structures. include 2,000 engaged in office tasks that subway stations, and over employees 3,000 new money. TA hires handling large sums of about year. each 11 (b) reflected in Rule policy narcotic drugs.

who use Regulations. of TA’s Rules and possession, in their must not or have

“Employees use, group Amphetamine of the narcotics, tranquilizers, drugs used to ad- paraphernalia or or barbiturate derivatives except with derivatives, minister narcotics or barbiturate the Medical Director —Chief permission the written System.” Surgeon meaning

Methadone is as a narcotic within regarded given by has (b). permission Rule No written ever been using person of a employment medical director for the TA's methadone.3

3By formerly terms, (b) apply its Rule does not who any find drug, used and the District Court did not methadone or other contrary, any general covering policy TA had former users. On the entirely respect the court found that situation is not clear with “[t]he successfully policy regarding persons of the TA concluded participation program.” a methadone

Although question it did not settle the of what TA enforces in respect, plaintiff the District Court included former users in the any exclusionary policy class. It then afforded them relief blanket from might enforce, findings although, again, supporting that TA factual Id., admittedly great “not deal” of at 1051. were evidence. [based on] meager TA contends that at trial evidence received “former support users” issue insufficient either the class relief determina- was respect go persons. tions made with to those further. As far as we We are aware there was no evidence offered at certainly trial, none relied upon by actually any Court, employment that TA refused injunction former user entitled to relief under the ordered court. 12, infra, (As point Frasier, we out in n. the one named plaintiff, who was a current user at complaint clearly a former user when the was filed was applied job may prop- time he first for a with TA and well have been erly perceived applied, notwithstanding as a current user when he next his completion during intervening assertion of successful three weeks. any case, completed year he had not a full of methadone maintenance and injunction.) could therefore be excluded under the District Court’s fact, evidence, findings It the' nor follows neither the record squarely respect presents issue to former users that must be synthetic The District found methadone is a system injected If depressant. narcotic and a central nervous essentially into bloodstream a it needle, produces legiti- effects as heroin.4 Methadone been used same has mately ways pain in at least three a “detoxifica- killer, —as taking of hospitals tion of as an immediate means units” mainte- heroin,5 long-range off of and in “methadone addicts part nance an cure heroin programs” intended pro- (b) such (1978). addiction. 21 CNR 310.304 § See orally in doses a grams regular is taken administered, produce As does not period. so it prolonged heroin; on euphoria any pleasurable effects associated with or prevents from effects contrary, experiencing users those dispose litigation. And, course, it is those resolved in order to this findings evidence, parties appeal than and that rather statements clearly findings even offhand erroneous characterizations Appeals, opinion MR. Justice Powell, and evidence the Court of see A post, 594^595, properly this that determine the issues before Court. policy policy excluding justify than a all former users would be harder to persons currently receiving A applicable treatment. court should constitutionality express opinion on the of such not reach out to an necessary dispute adjudicate a concrete adverse between unless legality litigants. to the shall confine our consideration We therefore (b) against current methadone. TA’s enforcement of its Rule 11 users of injected generally the bloodstream “Heroin is a narcotic which is into depressant. system It is a The usual effect needle. central nervous thirty minutes, ‘high’ euphoria, drowsiness—for about is to create a — period At the tapers then over a of about three or four hours. end of off experiences sickness and known as the heroin user discomfort time symptoms.’ craving is intense shot of There for another ‘withdrawal cycle again. typical inject heroin, starts over A addict will after which day.” Supp., at heroin times a several “by accomplished Court found that detoxification is The District gradually reducing the switching addict methadone and doses a heroin patient period zero over of about three weeks. of methadone to Moreover, hoped program it is that the thus detoxified free. him gradually reduced doses of methadone leaves without withdrawal ‘physical dependence’ symptoms, on a narcotic.” Ibid. they inject

when and also and heroin, alleviates the severe prolonged discomfort otherwise associated with an addict’s discontinuance of the use of heroin. 40,000 persons

About receive methadone maintenance treat- in participate ment New York of whom City, 26,000 about major public semipublic programs,6 14,000 the five or private programs.7 purpose involved about 25 The sole of all programs these is to treat the addiction of years. have been heroin for using at least two Methadone largely maintenance treatment in New York is governed by regulations by promulgated the New York State Drug Abuse Control regulations, Commission. Under the newly accepted normally addict must first be detoxified, A hospital. daily pre- dosage controlled of methadone then regulations scribed. be require that six doses week day’s may at a be clinic, administered while the seventh dose progress satisfactory months, taken at home. If for three may away although additional doses be taken from the clinic, major public semi-public pro “The five or maintenance grams City in New are: York “(1) program treating patients; The Beth Israel . .. with 35 clinics

“(2) by program City A administered of New York with 39 clinics 12,400 treating patients (hereafter City program’); referred to as ‘the “(3) program by A Hospital administered Albert Bronx State and the College Medicine, treating patients; Einstein with 7 clinics about “ (4) program operated A the Addiction Research and Treatment Cen- (ARTC) treating patients; ter 6with clinics about 1200 “(5) program operated Drug A the New York State Abuse Control (DACC), treating patients. Commission with 8 clinics about 1100 patients “The total public semi-public programs number of treated in or 26,000. appears programs is about It these are financed almost entirely by federal, city Id., state and funds.” at 1040. 7“[V]ery specific provided regarding little information was trial] [at Id., private clinics.” at 1046. What evidence there was indicated that likely provide those clinics were to be less successful less able to ac Id., curate information about their public clients than the clinics. most several throughout which often program, lasts appear- requirement there is a minimum clinic years, three only re- During patient week. visits, ances a these use his illicit ceives doses but is also and tested for counseled of drugs.8 cure is an effective

The evidence indicates that methadone physical of heroin But aspects addiction. overcome many persons found attempting Court also “that problems life-style psychological heroin addiction have taking beyond by physical can be the which reach what cured crucial of of The Supp., doses methadone.” 399 at 1039. F. patient’s indicator of successful maintenance is the methadone and illegal drugs from the or use of abstinence excessive reversion The found that the of alcohol. District Court risk dramatically first or the drug alcohol abuse declines after of majority” of “the Indeed, strong few months treatment. for at patients who been methadone maintenance significant from use.9 year drug least a are free illicit But a 8 also Although Drug has the United States Food and Administration (1978), the regulations §§291.501, in area, issued CFR 291.505 effectively- regulations stringent or York State are as more and thus New pro set the relevant standards for the methadone maintenance authorized grams ingestion of regulations, involved case. Under in this those in-clinic (b) members, by 2021.13 methadone must be staff NYCRR observed § days during first (1976), frequency must and occur with a of six week days months, through no less three thereafter the second three than a week (c) (1). year treatment, days a thereafter. 2021.13 of and two week § required use prevent hoarding doses, Tests are take-home excessive of which, alcohol, any if methadone, drugs of and of or illicit use other of frequency or from found, separation can result in increased clinic-visit in (c)(2), re program. (g). programs are also 2021.13 §§2021.13 quired comprehensive range “a on-site to include of services rehabilitative although professional (e), participation in supervision,” under 2021.13 § voluntary irregular. many services is and of these strong majority from metha “I conclude all evidence that of persons period of successful, done maintained are at least after the initial adjustment, keeping heroin, free the use of other illicit themselves drinking.” drugs, problem at 1047. point,

number are not. On this critical the evidence relied upon by among partici- the District Court reveals even pants main- with more than months’ tenure methadone drug programs, tenance incidence of and alcohol abuse may approach often and even exceed 25%.10 litigation

This four brought respondents was as class action on or been, behalf all who have would subject rejection employees in the future be, discharge or participation of TA reason maintenance a methadone employees program. respondents Two of the are former TA were dismissed while methadone receiving were treatment.11 The other employment by TA, two were refused shortly shortly one both before and after the successful con clusion his treatment,12 the other while he 10Thus, example: Trigg 5,000

“Dr. 6,500-7,000 of Beth Israel testified that out about patients year in his clinics have been on methadone maintenance for 5,000 more. further He testified that of this illicit free from 75% Id., use.” at 1046. Similarly, although figures may higher city be somewhat Hospital Bronx programs, patients State ARTC with a 70% year’s drug tenure or more were found to be free from illicit or alcohol use. anywhere It is reasonable to infer from evidence from 20% year of those who have been on maintenance for over a 30% drug problems. or alcohol 11Respondent was in Beazer dismissed November 1971 when his heroin shortly addiction became to TA known he after had enrolled in a program; successfully methadone maintenance he terminated his treatment Respondent Reyes began in November 1973. his methadone treatment in 1971 and was dismissed TA in 1972. trial, 1975, At the time of he participating was still a program. in methadone 12Respondent Frasier was on only methadone maintenance for five months, from 1972 bim October until March employ 1973. TA refused to operator as a bus in March 1973 and as April a bus cleaner in participate Frasier did not program a methadone year. half even Moreover, positively he tested for methadone at use the of time his March application April a few weeks before application rejected his was (b). 11 Supp., under Rule 399 F. 1034; App. See at 32A. Under these

577 TA’s Their taking complaint alleged was methadone.13 meth receiving all former addicts blanket exclusion of heroin illegal Act of Rights treatment under the Civil adone was of VII the 1981, Rev. Stat. U. C. Title 1866, 1977, § § S. C. Rights Act as S. 253, amended, Civil U. Stat. seg., et Four Equal 2000e Protection Clause of the § and the teenth Amendment. the concerning evidence record contains extensive

The trial employ- programs, the success methadone maintenance pro- ability the ability persons taking methadone, undesirable employers detect other spective abuse District the general, of methadone users. characteristics meth- are concluded that there substantial numbers other just users who as as members employable adone personnel-screening population and normal general of obtain- augmented if some method procedures least —at programs the staffs of methadone information from ing —would indi- identify unqualified applicants TA to on an enable other 1048-1051. basis. On vidual that at one-third recognized least hand, District Court probably persons receiving methadone treatment —and be many classified unquestionably more —would good unemployable.14

circumstances, Court’s of Frasier as characterization applied, user at time he and its inclusion of Frasier “former” appro- users it felt was group of “tenured” methadone for whom relief infra, Equal Clause, n. are without priate under the Protection see justification. apparent program in Respondent entered a methadone maintenance Diaz receiving at the trial. He 1968 and was still treatment time of December employment helper in 1970. as a maintenance was refused testimony concerning summarized one of The District Court public programs: largest and most successful one- program the Beth testified that about “The witnesses from Israel adjustment, program, period patients in that after a short of third of very persons the doses little more than of methadone. The need fairly satisfactorily category respect matters such are situated extensively After reviewing evidence, briefly stated its conclusion that TA’s methadone unconstitutional. legal conclusion rested on the proposi- a public entity tion that employ- “cannot bar from ment on the basis criteria which have no rational relation jobs performed.” Id., demands to be at Because it is clear that substantial numbers methadone capable users are performing many jobs of the TA, at court held that the Constitution will a blanket not tolerate exclusion of all jobs. from users all enjoined

The District Court employment TA from denying any person solely because of participation program. maintenance re- Recognizing, however, special sponsibility for public safety employees borne certain TA and the correlation between longevity in main- a methadone tenance program performance capability, injunction authorized TA exclude specific methadone users from categories safety-sensitive positions and also to condition eligibility satisfactory performance pro- a methadone gram year. at least a In other words, the court held that TA could lawfully adopt general rules excluding all methadone users from jobs some large number of methadone users jobs. from all year

Almost a later the District Court a supplemental filed opinion allowing respondents attorney’s to recover under fees 42 U. C. (k). § S. 2000e-5 This premised determination was on the court’s additional holding that drug policy TA’s vio- lated Title VII. Having already concluded that the blanket family ties, jobs. education Another one-third patients Beth Israel need a moderate amount of service, including rehabilitation assistance, period vocational for a year. several months or about a A person category may, in this instance, high school, have finished but may long history have a heroin employment and no record. A final one- patients third of the at Beth Israel supportive need services, intensive performing program marginally, in the and either discharged will be or will discharge.” be on the brink at 1048.

579 rationally exclusion was not related to business needs of TA, the court reasoned the statute is if violated exclusionary policy discriminatory against has a effect blacks Hispanics. and That effect was Court’s the District proved, view, (1) employees two statistics: referred TA’s suspected medical consultant for drug policy, violation of its Hispanic; black or between (2) of all 81% 62% 65% City methadone-maintained in New York are black 414 Hispanic. Supp. 1976). The 277, (SDNY F. 278-279 court, however, policy did not find that TA’s was motivated by any against blacks or Hispanics; expressly bias indeed, it adopted discriminatory found that was not with a Id., purpose. at 279. Appeals

The Court of affirmed the consti- District Court’s holding. tutional 558 2d 97. it declined to reach F. While statutory attorney’s it also affirmed the award of fees issue, Attorney’s recently aegis Rights under the enacted Civil provides Awards 1976, 1988, § Fees Act U. S. C. pre- support party for an award of to a adequate legal fees on a constitutional claim.15 vailing amended the Reha- certiorari, Congress

After granted we seq., 701 et § 87 Stat. U. S. C. bilitation Act against “handicapped class of prohibit discrimination abusers former arguably includes certain individuals” 95-602, of methadone. current users Pub. L. and certain now argue that amendment Respondents 2984. Stat. relat Appeals reversed the District Court on one issue backpay had denied reinstatement ing The lower court to relief. having plaintiffs named because admitted the four relief to two of being unquestionably against taking while valid rule heroin TA’s violated Appeals App. Pet. for Cert. 77a-78a. The Court employ. in TA’s plaintiffs’ that the two former heroin use vio It determined reversed. explicitly TA that account were irrelevant because rules on lation of TA’s exclusively 2d, on their use of methadone. 558 F. firing premised their prospective granted by least the relief the District mandates at should therefore Appeals Court and the Court of and that we satisfied, granted. We are improvidently dismiss the writ question we should decide the constitutional however, by petition. doing so, Before we shall discuss presented case; on and (1) the effect of the Rehabilitation Act this analysis error in the of Title VII. (2) the District Court's I (6)7 contend amendment Respondents § recent of the Rehabilitation Act TA's enforcement of proscribes Even general denying employment rule to methadone users.16 even respondents correctly interpret amendment, if and they if the case right interpretation,17 have a to enforce that

16 Act, 394, 504 of forth in 29 Section the Rehabilitation 87 Stat. as set 794, provides: U. S. C. § qualified handicapped States,

“No otherwise in the United as individual (6) solely by title, shall, defined in section 706 of this reason of his handi- cap, of, participation in, be excluded from the denied the benefits or be subjected any activity program receiving be to discrimination under or Federal financial assistance.” stipulated

It is the TA receives federal financial assistance. (6) part, Act, (6), 7 In relevant of the 29 706 as U. S. C. amended § § redesignated, (7) (1976 ed., (B) 92 Stat. 29 U. C. 706 S.- § Supp. Ill), provides: ‘handicapped any (i) term person individual’ . means . . has “[T]he physical impairment substantially mental or limits one or more major person’s activities, (ii) of such life impair- a record of such an has (iii) ment, regarded having impairment. purposes such an For sections 503 504 employment, as such sections relate such term does not include individual who is an alcoholic or abuser whose current drugs prevents performing use of alcohol or such from individual the duties job question employment, of the in or whose reason of such current drug abuse, alcohol or would constitute a property direct threat to or the safety of others.” question whether a cause of handicapped action on behalf of may implied be under 504 of the Rehabilitation Act will be § Community College addressed this Court Davis, Southeastern v. granted, 78-711, No. cert. U. S. 1065. itself before the Act arose even since their claims is not moot monetary relief.19 been awarded passed,18 was amend- its statute, even after of the Moreover, language administrative or and no ambiguity,20 free of ment, is not impact considering judicial opinions specifically to our attention. have been called on methadone users statute we however clear that perfectly it is importance, greater Of concerns Act, Rehabilitation might construe the our atten- merit certiorari would still grant our prompted judi- first its give decline to statute We therefore tion.21 litigation. stage cial construction complaint respondents’ alleged cited act of discrimination The latest 26, 1973, September passed on April 1973, the Act was while occurred (6) into effect 93-112, V, to 7 went and the amendment L. Title § Pub. 6, 1978. November supra. See n. bring respondent class findings to for the District Court’s order denying employ Act, find that conclusively would have to within the we excluding an amounts to user because of that use ment to a methadone solely by reason of his qualified handicapped individual . . . “otherwise require determine issues, us to Among other this would handicap.” qualify as “handi (1) methadone users whether heroin addicts or current (or per e., addiction or use is whether that capped individual [s]” —i. substantially one or as) impairment limits “physical . . . which ceived prevents the (2) major activities”; methadone use life whether more . . . job” constitute performing the duties of the or “would “from individual (3) others”; safety whether property of threat to direct qualified” meaning of respondent are “otherwise class of members —the College Davis, Community v. phrase is at issue in Southeastern which supra. Respondents may exag supra, accompanying text. 1, n. See law as it amendment altered the degree which the recent gerate the Appeals granted certiorari. Even before the Court existed when we Attorney the United case, fact, in General of argument in this heard which it then existed interpretation of the Act as had issued an States against general prohibit discrimination Act “does concluded Opinion federally-assisted programs . . . .” drug addicts in alcoholics and States, Bell, Attorney United General the Honorable Griffin B. Health, Secretary, Department Joseph Califano, A. to the Honorable II consistently on Although respondents have relied both stat- utory claims, and constitutional the lower courts focused primarily on the latter. when the Thus, District Court afterthought decided the it issue, Title VII did so as an support attorney's fees; order the Court an award Appeals not did even reach the Title VII issue. We do condone “If departure practice. from settled federal there deeply is one doctrine more rooted than other the process ought of constitutional adjudication, it is that we pass not to on . questions constitutionality . . unless such Service, Spector Motor adjudication Inc. is unavoidable.” v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 105. 101, deciding Before the consti- tutional question, it was incumbent those courts consider statutory might whether grounds be dispositive.22 What- Education, Apr. Welfare, Respondents brought this inter- pretation granted to our attention before we App. certiorari. to Brief in Opposition A5-A6. Hayburn’s Case, “From Dall. Alma Motor Co. v. Timken- Co.[, 129,] Detroit Axle case[, 329 U. S. and the Hatch Pub Act United lic Mitchell, 75,] Workers v. 330 U. S. decided this term, this Court has policy necessity followed a of strict in disposing of constitutional issues. exemplifications, earliest history here, too well for repeating known arose in the advisory Court’s refusal to opinions render applications and in jurisdictional of the related controversy drawn from the case and limitation. U. S. Const., Art. III.... policy, “The however, jurisdictional has not been limited to determina- For,

tions. in addition, 'the developed, govern- for its own [has] confessedly ance in the cases within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under passing upon has avoided large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon Thus, it for decision.’ as those rules were listed support in of the quoted, statement affecting legisla- constitutional issues tion friendly, will not be nonadversary determined in proceedings; in necessity advance deciding them; in broader terms than required by precise the facts to which the ruling is applied; to be if the presents ground record upon some other may which the case disposed be of; at the instance of one who fails injured to show that by he is operation, statute’s or who has availed benefits; himself of its or if a eon- doing dispose their for not so,23 ever reasons we shall first the Title VII issue.24

The do its conclusion findings support Court’s fairly question may struction of possible the statute is be Army Municipal Court, (foot v. avoided.” Rescue 331 U. S. 568-569 omitted), quoting A, (Brandeis, or its narcotics, use prohibiting regulation TA’s that meth- encompass users regulation of that interpretation Act. Rights the Civil Title YII of adone, violated by may be established Act of the violation prima A facie has practice employment an that showing evidence statistical access equal one race members of denying the effect of respondents assuming that Even opportunities. employment is examined record the entire threshold, when crossed this have and the they the two statistics is clear of Title VII.25 prove do not a violation Court relied employees of the noted that the District Court First, 81% of its suspected violation medical director referred to TA’s respondents But Hispanic. black rule were either narcotics possibility of suggesting the any parties’ even this Court without remand. disposes of the claim also Moreover, § treatment of the Title YII our applicability of that Although exact need of a remand. without claim it affords Court, it seems clear been decided

provision has not Title protection than YII. greater substantive no discrimination. competent proving employment in are . . . “Statistics irrefutable; they in infinite come that statistics are caution We they may evidence, be rebutted. variety kind and, like other surrounding facts and circum depends short, on all their usefulness (footnote States, 324, 431 U. S. 339-340 Teamsters v. United stances.” omitted). to this complaint until their submissions filed their

From the time discrimina- demonstrate the Court, respondents relied on statistics to attempted to They tory policy. have never of TA’s methadone effect do pressed to discriminatory purpose and would be hard present case finding explicit no animus in the face of the District Court’s so (SDNY Supp. establishing policy, 414 F. TA its motivated in Equal demonstration in forms filed with the 1976), and the face TA’s percentage of blacks and Employment Opportunity Commission that percentage Hispanics force well over twice that of the in its work metropolitan area. New York force work claim, respondents’ merits of Title VII conclusion on the Because of our challenge made TA to Title VII the constitutional we need not address municipal agency the cir- against a under as it authorizes relief insofar supra. of this case. n. cumstances See that it is construed the extent challenged the rule only to us statistic tells and that users, methadone apply employees of the sus- composition racial nothing about the give us record Nor does the using methadone.26 pected of Hispanic, or black, of number any information about the using for methadone. dismissed who were persons white of the noted that about District Court Second, the 63% in maintenance City receiving methadone in New York persons City York all New e., programs the public 65% —i. 63%- or black programs27 are in such methadone users —are per many of these how know, however, not Hispanic. We do for TA. This statistic sought to work worked sons ever composi anything if the racial about reveals little therefore receiving employees job applicants TA the class of tion nothing tells us particularly, More methadone treatment. em applicants and otherwise-qualified class of about the maintenance participated in methadone who have ployees comprising this employees probable of the that none Indeed, it is stipulated that: parties The methadone users. were 81% drug abuse other than showing physical employees manifestations “TA illicit in presence morphine or methadone or other the definite App. medical . . . .” urine, are referred for consultation [the director] added). (emphasis 86A finding if that few stipulation and the District Court’s

In view of methadone-maintained drug abuse characterize physical manifestations likely persons 1042-1045, it seems such Supp., at persons, 399 F. by pool referred to in the not be included statistical would rejec- the dissent refers to be noted that when It should also Court. rule,” post, 600,the refer- applicants all “due to almost tion of 5% The record methadone users. rather than to all narcotics users ence is to rejected. many users were methadone does tell us how by derived from upon the District Court was relied The statistic by Uni patients prepared a researcher at Rockefeller study of methadone in public methadone clinics New versity upon supplied data based admittedly virtually no received City. the District Court In that York clinics, funding, participants, their see their private about evidence University assuming that the Rockefeller supra, is no basis for 7,n. there programs. private applicable participants in the statistic year improperly excluded programs over class —the analysis. TA’s under the District Court’s virtually irrele demonstrates, fact, figure in record included in portion vant because a substantial reasons —such as the illicit unqualified it are either other drugs use of received successful assist alcohol28—or have Finally, in TA.29 finding jobs employers ance than other users absolutely 14,000 we have no data on the methadone private programs, leaving open possibility that the percentage Hispanics of blacks and the class of significantly greater percentage users is not than the of those City.30 general population of New York minorities 28 study employability, the a To demonstrate District Court referred to indicating that to of the methadone who have been in a users 34% 59% employed. program period maintenance for a substantial of time are The respect to all 399 F. evidence was inconclusive methadone users. Supp., However, largest program at the director of the second only City methadone-patient New York testified that of the entire 33% employable. (Jan. population program 10, 1975). in that were Tr. 345 relating drugs supra, On alcohol, the statistics to illicit use of at see 575-576. 29Although showing “a disproportionate impact statistical [need not] always analysis applicants,” be based on an of the characteristics of actual Rawlinson, 321, 330, showing Dothard v. 433 U. “evidence that the S. figures general population might accurately for the pool reflect the qualified job applicants” significance figures. undermines the of such States, supra, v. Teamsters United n. 20. participants private If white, example, all of the clinics are then only about Hispanic of all methadone users would be black or 40% —-com pared the population City of the total of New York that was black 36.3% Hispanic Assuming as of the 1970 percentage census. instead that the private programs duplicates of those minorities in the percentage in their population City, figures of New York would still show Hispanic compared of all methadone are black or users 50% 36.3% population (The metropolitan figure in the upon area. relied 20% Hispanics force, dissent refers to blacks and in the work rather than in population City the total metropolitan New York The reason area. total-population figure appropriate figure is the one is because the 63% if it weak; even is showing respondents’ At statistical best, discrimination, facie case establishing prima capable its nar- by TA’s demonstration assuredly rebutted it users) is to methadone (and application rule’s cotics rule finding that express District Court’s “job related.” The any claim animus forecloses by racial rule was not motivated for intentional merely a pretext in rebuttal was conclude that at 279. We discrimination. Title VII. We prove violation respondents failed issue. reach the constitutional therefore must Ill Amend- the Fourteenth Protection Clause of Equal within “deny any person provides that no shall ment State The Clause laws.” jurisdiction equal protection its govern must the State principle: announces fundamental evenhandedly to all apply rules that impartially. General comply with unquestionably jurisdiction within the persons a rule adopts unit Only governmental principle. when a subject all the special impact on less than that has a population upon by methadone users respondents refers to relied force.) just generally and not those in the work District Court estab recognize, findings of the Respondents and the require safety efficiency employment goals of lish, legitimate that TA’s barbiturates, amphetamines, narcotics, and illegal the exclusion of all users of supra; supra, at 4, majority users. See n. and of a of all methadone supra. 14; 28, The District Court also 575-576, 9-10; 577, and n. n. and nn. require from the the exclusion of all methadone users goals held that those supra, Finally, “safety positions See at 578. its that are sensitive.” of 25% by goals significantly served those are the District Court noted that —even they require applies to all methadone users if do rule as it —TA’s non-safety-sensitive posi including seeking employment in those who are TA’s 33, thus demonstrates that 37, tions. nn. The record See infra. question.” relationship employment a to the rule bears “manifest Paper Griggs Co. Co., Power 401 U. 432. See Albemarle v. Duke S. respondents’ showing Moody, weak 422 U. 425. Whether or not v. S. clearly carry prima case, sufficient to a facie failed was establish proving a Title respondents’ ultimate burden violation of VII. is jurisdiction question principle does the whether this to its arise. violated places meaningful restric- case, (b) TA’s Rule sense job applicants;

tion on and in that employees all its equal satisfies the general applicability the rule is one of and The District protection principle inquiry. without further applicable to the however, interpreted the rule Court, drugs, persons regularly limited class of use narcotic necessarily including interpreted, methadone. As so we are question confronted with the whether rule reflects an impermissible against special bias class. validity special

Respondents questioned have never con- Rather, they originally rule for all users of narcotics. persons methadone should not be receiving tended that be rule; covered other should not words, unobjectionable. included within a class otherwise Their constitutional claim was that methadone users are employees be treated like most other appli- entitled to and than cants rather like other users of narcotics. But Court’s findings unequivocally establish that there persons are relevant between methadone using differences regularly no who use narcotics kind.32

32The District Court found that methadone a narcotic. See 399 E. id,., (“The during at 1038. See also at 1044 that, evidence is patients being up brought dosage time their constant (a weeks), period may drowsiness, of about six complaints there be insomnia, sweating, constipation, perhaps symp excess some other toms”). every Moreover, member of the class of methadone was users formerly addicted completely cured; use of heroin. None is other wise, continuing require there be no would need for treatment. All some special supervision, weekly measure all must structure their mandatory appearances routines around at methadone clinics. The clinics periodic long make cheeks as as the treatment continues in order to detect Employers evidence of abuse. review, verify, must and sometimes checks; these since the record indicates that supplied the information uniformly reliable, 7, supra, employer treatment centers is not n. see or at question need, no least Respondents longer Indeed, methadone users. justification, special rules for opinion they defend the District Court’s vigorously to have a permissible it would be for TA expressly held that unless any employment special rule methadone users denying year, and they undergoing treatment for at least had been reliable rule senior and special denying another even the most jobs dangerous of the more users system. employment policies,

The constitutional defect TA’s special TA not has according Court, to the District that rather some members users, rules for methadone but requirements from exempted should have been some the class are rules holding its special rules. Left intact detect users requiring special supervision of methadone high-risk from excluding them evidence abuse, none- employment. rules, those the District Accepting jobs in nonsensitive could employment concluded that theless satis- progressed be denied to methadone users who had not when factorily year, who, treatment for one with their employment criteria. satisfied TA’s individually, examined meth- In having recognized disparate treatment short, users simply adone users because are methadone having excused TA from an across-the-board permissible —and consideration of such requirement individual —the Equal construed the Protection Clause as District Court precise special adopt TA to additional and more requiring special class. rules continuing responsibility special and the condition of these

has a review persons. addition, percentage persons taking a substantial methadone will successfully complete program. findings the treatment do not any precision drop the number out, or the number who

indicate fairly unemployable, but the be classified as evidence indicates that it can majority taking any given may of those methadone at time. be a See well 28, supra. nn. might TA any short of exclusion special

But rule total that assuredly be more be less will adopt likely precise is to —and If currently eligibil costly33 the one enforces. that it —than ity any point after one is marked intermediate at —whether inevitably or year treatment later —the classification will or employees applicants equally or discriminate between significant screening procedures The identified District Court several adopt if it specially that TA would to for methadone users aban have example, its users doned rule. For the court noted that current methadone (but applicants) no other would to have they program a

“demonstrate that have been on reliable methadone year more; they faithfully by pro- abided rules of the that according systematic gram; that, observations, to tests and [and] any period drug have been free illicit or alcohol for the entire abuse possible treatment, excluding adjustment period . . . .” at 1049. recognized verifying

The District also Court that above demon- by require special strations the methadone user would efforts to obtain about, from, many reliable information different each metha- recognized problematic done maintenance clinics—a task that be it could 1050; Id., supra. some at Furthermore, cases. see n. once it hired user, duty continuing would prog- TA have a monitor to his program special precau- in the ress maintenance and would have to take against promotion safety-sensitive positions tions his to from may District Court held he be excluded. repeatedly attributing The dissent is therefore mistaken in to the Dis- finding screening trict Court a that process “normal TA’s without addi- drugs” tional effort” suffice in Post, would the absence of the “no rule. post, 608. Aggravating at See at 608 n. 14. assump- this factual erroneous legal proposition tion is a by mistaken advanced the dissent —that TA can prove faulted failing unemployability be “successfully main- Post, tained methadone users. at Aside from the misallocation of the proof burden of argument, that underlies important note, see post, prove that TA did of the class afforded relief 20% 30% by the “successfully are not maintained,” and hence are assuredly not employable. assuming Even therefore that the percentage employable persons remaining is the same as that in the 70% applicants class of TA who methadone, respondents do not use it is failing prove must be faulted for the offending could be 30% cheaply effectively excluded as in the absence of the rule. Dis recovery.34 full Even the apt to achieve equally

almost con year rigidly specify one as a opinion trict Court’s did not of treatment stitutionally period mandated measure recovery full from addiction.35 guarantees of heroin the rehabilitation associated with uncertainties marking any bright line precluded identifying addicts it from By contrast, point regression at which the risk of ends.36 supported TA the “no now enforced drugs” program inference treatment legitimate long that as as a uncertainty pers (or drug use) continues, degree other a postpones policy that employment an Accordingly, ists.37 34 may fact, many been in be, It that methadone users who have well year actually qualified for something more programs for less than a are longer many program for employment than others have been in a year. than a 35 regula making prevented “The TA is not from reasonable rules satisfactory requiring methadone maintained tions about —such year period . . . .” performance program for a of time such as a a at 1058. only find are not in the District Court’s These uncertainties evident Marshall v. ings legislative problem. See but also in consideration of States, United 425-427. U. S. program point at which completion also marks the drug dependence. More employee applicant considers himself cured of longer must make over, point employee/applicant it at which the no is the clinic, longer free metha regular to a methadone no has access to visits physically dis might be hoarded and taken in excessive and done simple test opposed urine test —as to a urine ruptive doses, and at which a subject’s by verify participa up efforts to the bona fides of the followed prove program, program and of the itself—suffices to tion in a methadone compliance with TA’s rules. validity

Respondents argue that of these is belied considerations Although employees alcoholics. TA refuses to hire new TA’s treatment of employ large drinking problems, it continues in its a number drinking job been found on the or have been persons who have either give duty prior drinking. These situations unfit for because of deemed discipline but are handled on an individual basis. But fact rise expend problem employees one TA has the resources to on class of completed, been program until the treatment has eligibility uncertain point on an rather than an intermediate accepting invidious unprincipled neither nor is rational. It is line, disrespect for the excluded subclass. implies the sense that was that Court’s conclusion simplest, At its the District meth- necessary rule than to exclude those TA’s is broader for TA. actually qualified to work adone users who may conclusion is but also We assume not correct rely like TA probably large employer that it is unwise for rule instead of individualized consideration general every concern matters job applicant. assumptions But these personnel policy implicate principle that do not safe- guarded by Equal Protection Clause.38 As the District by TA’s special classification created recognized, efficiency.39 general objectives safety rule serves the exclusionary challenged by respondents line “is Moreover, 'against’ category not one which is directed individual or made persons, represents but rather it choice . . . power that branch of Government vested with the to make States, such choices.” Marshall v. United U. S. by duty part up not

does itself establish a constitutional on its to come spend problem employees. with resources to on all classes of 38The District Court also concluded that the Due TA’s rule violates presumption” Process because it an Clause creates “irrebuttable of unem- ployability part Supp., on the of methadone users. 399 F. at 1057. Re spondents rely process argument Court, do not on the due and this we find no merit in it. “39 egislative classifications are valid unless bear rational no [L] relationship objectives. to the State’s Massachusetts Bd. Retirement v. of Murgia, 307, legislation Equal U. S. State ‘does not violate the 314]. [427 merely imper Protection Clause because the classifications [it makes] Dandridge Williams, Washington v. 471, fect.’ 397 U. v. S. 485.” Nation, Bradley, Indian 463, Yakima 439 U. S. 501-502. See also Vance v. Phillips ante, 108, quoting District, at Chemical Co. v. Dumas School 376, (“Even 361 U. if the S. 385 classification involved here is to some overinelusive, by extent both underinclusive and and hence the drawn line imperfect, Congress it is nevertheless the rule 'per a case like this ”). by required’ fection is no means

593 a circumscribe class of character- Because it does not create it does by unpopular affiliation, ized or not some trait part special of bias on any or reflect likelihood no Under it ruling majority.40 circumstances, these degree rationality is constitutipnal significance that the subparts of the great respect to certain ill-defined as as a respect to the classification classification as it is with Diaz, whole. Mathews v. 67, 426 83-84.41 U. S.

40 equal Connolly, 27, protection v. 113 Since Barbier U. S. Court’s discrimination,” recognized cases have a distinction between “invidious unequal eye id., e., at “with an evil an 30—i. classifications drawn specific group by feeling antipathy” against, a hand” motivated “a or Hing Hopkins, 373-374; v. residents, Soon 356, Yick Wo v. 118 U. S. Quong 710; Wing Kirkendall, U. S. Crowley, 703, U. S. see v. 223 also 59; Hardy, “are 366, special v. U. those Holden S. 398—and rules water, necessary general supplying preventing often benefits as] [such many fires, districts, cleaning streets, opening ob lighting parks, and other Washington Davis, jects.” Barbier, supra, v. 426 U at 31. See also S. by Quite (b) was TA’s interest plainly, 239-241. TA’s Rule motivated any system by transportation rather than operating a safe and efficient persons. special against specific group of Cf. F. animus recognize general motivation, as did the Dis Respondents 279. valid challenges applies rule Court, trict that reason neither TA’s as it user’s, respondents all Because to all narcotic or even to methadone users. users, merely applies challenge the rule insofar to some methadone question challenge raise falls on does not even whether rule Accordingly, noth side the Barbier distinction. there is the “invidious” especially presumption illegality and our ing give rise to a to warrant Corrigan, judgment.” Cf. Truax S. “attentive v. 257 U. may determined, legal doubts that it distinction is as no one “When maturity, be, night day, or ex childhood and other between drawn, tremes, point gradually has fixed or has or to be a line to be decisions, change picked place. mark out successive where takes regard necessity behind it the or Looked at itself without line arbitrary. might nearly It be a point as well as well little more seems or point to the other. But when it is seen that a line there one side or way be, logical fixing pre or of must that there is no mathematical it and cisely, legislature accepted say must be unless can the decision of we very mark.” Gas Cole it wide reasonable Louisville Co. v. is of J., man, (Holmes, dissenting). 32, 41 U. S. 277 employ- TA refuse may be for to how unwise it No matter bus- or repairmen, track cleaners, car ment to individual treat- receiving methadone are simply because drivers court federal does authorize the Constitution ment, of Court judgment in decision. The policy interfere Appeals

Reversed. concurring part dissenting Powell, and Justice Mr. part. addresses, sustains, and opinion

The insofar Authority (b) under its Rule the Transit employment employees applicants applies as it sup- (emphasis receiving who methadone treatment” “are I concur Ante, ante, page. plied) 572-573, . at n. no violation holding there is opinion of the Court Author- VII when the Clause or Title Equal Protection who applicants employees ity’s policy applied currently on methadone. by the record presented question my

But in view the effect of limited to the below is not courts opinions it thought I had Indeed, users. present methadone rule Authority’s policy Transit that the concerned conceded all Rule language beyond the literal extended of exclusion use but currently of methadone free (b) years. previous five within the been on the had were excluded past all users unsure whether was District Court at least covered policy of exclusion indicated that but five for less than free methadone use had been persons who 1975). The Court (SDNY Supp. 1032,1036 years. 399 F. Authority “contends that noted that Court also 1 The District present or employing the risks of it considers to take what cannot afford possibly have been persons, except those who past maintained years.” 399 F. for several successfully from methadone withdrawn supplied). (emphasis Appeals for the Second Circuit unequivocal. was It under stood the rule constituted a “blanket exclusion from employment of all in or success participating having fully concluded methadone programs.” maintenance 2d 99 (1977). in

Petitioners’ brief this Court states, the effect, Authority only will applicants employment consider have been free of drug problem years”: “at least five Authority give will individual consideration to

“[T]he people with a past history drug of including addiction completed those who have either a free metha- or a done maintenance and who have been com- program, pletely drug free and history have had a stable for at least years.” five Brief for Petitioners 5.

There recognition was similar Authority’s the policy petition for the a writ of certiorari.2 Despite unanimity this among parties and courts below to question today as presented, simply the Court chooses limit policy to its decision to the employees with to respect applicants currently receiving methadone treatment. The explanation given is findings that “neither the nor the fact, record evidence, squarely presents any respect to issue former users that must be dispose resolved order litigation.” Ante, 3. But 572-573, support n. Court cites for this statement lack proof is a policy’s application. light express actual In of the admission petitioners’ statement ease affected class was said to in completed participants former clude addicts “who are in or have a metha program.” (emphasis supplied). done maintenance Pet. for Cert. 4 respondents similarly Authority’s The brief for described the Transit policy: Authority’s employment fully

“The Transit blanket denial rehabili- being heroin tated addicts who are or ever have been treated in metha- Equal programs done maintenance violates the Protection Due Process Respondents Clauses of the Fourteenth Brief for Amendment.” policy Authority District Court that to the of the Transit past evidence users,3 least some former extended to at fashioning irrelevant was application of relief.4 prospective of the portion

I Court has decided conclude that the recognizes it has to address what failed presented, case Ante, 591-592, 572-573, 3,n. difficult issue. at the more properly to all issues parties 37. to the resolve n. We owe it as to guidance no whatever than to afford presented, rather may be excluded drug and methadone users former whether courts I with the Authority. agree employment from bar absolute for an is no rational basis there below suc- completed persons who against employment of otherwise program and who maintenance cessfully a methadone 3 pp. 1106a- 76-7295, Appeals App. Joint in No. See, g., 3 Court of e. 1112a. 4 Authority’s policy imply Transit that because the Court seems to against not been invoked methadone users had respect to former with certify Court to improper it for the District plaintiffs, named was Ante, policy. at 572- who would be affected a class of former users proper for this 573, 576-577, if were to consider 3, 12. Even one n. n. finding plaintiff Frasier disregard explicit Court’s Court to the District use,” Supp., at 1034 rejected of his methadone “was because former finding: further (emphasis supplied), the Court overlooks many patients unquestioned methadone maintenance that there are “[I]t stay drug abuse successfully methadone and clear of who withdraw from using person, having ceased metha- thereafter. Plaintiff Beazer is such a ago. years two done almost against maintaining an absolute bar

“There no rational reason for Id., persons regardless of at employment of these their individual merits.” proper representative It Beazer both was a of the class of is clear that Authority employment, interested in Transit inas- former users and was sought. light part was of the relief he much as reinstatement unequivocal Authority’s employing persons in of not Transit unnecessary position, engage him Beazer’s it was for in the futile ritual employment terminating after his use in reapplying for standing policy. to attack the order to have

597 ante, qualified Vance Bradley, employment. See v. Murgia, Massachusetts Retirement 111; Bd. v. S.U. (1976); San Independent Antonio School Dist. v. Rodriguez, (1973). U. S. I therefore would affirm the judgment respect below with class are former methadone users. Justice

Mr. dissenting. Brennan, affirm would I the reasons stated in Part Mr. Jus- tice opinion. dissenting White’s

Mr. Justice White, with Mr. whom Justice Marshall joins, dissenting.

Although purports apply principles settled unique facts, the result square reached does either Title YII or Equal the Protection but Accordingly, Clause. I respectfully, dissent.

I anAs initial the in matter, failing Court unwise remand statutory the Appeals. claims to the Court District only decided the VII Court Title issue because provided attorney’s a basis for allowing Supp. fees. (SDNY 278 277, 1976). of Appeals The Court did not deal with Title VII, relying intervening passage instead on the Rights the Civil Attorney’s of 1976,1 Awards Act which Fees authorized protec- the award of fees for equal success on the today claim tion held infirm the Court. 558 F. 2d 99- 97, (CA2 1977). 100 In such that we circumstances, finding on disagree with judgment Appeals the the Court of to the as constitutional usually we unex- question, remand the would g., plored alternative basis for relief.2 E. Vermont Yankee 1 U. S. C. 1988. § 2The Court inappropriate finds it to remand because Title YII question fully Court, “was aired before the District . . . involves application legal principles facts, of settled and . uncontroversial . . 598 NRDC, 519, (1978). 435 U. S. Corp. Power v.

Nuclear Dev. Housing Heights Metropolitan Arlington v. And see iden nearly involved which (1977), Corp., U. S. the need obviate would course tical circumstances. That issue a to be factual considers with what the Court us to deal analyzing the issue. in provide assistance or at least would I however, question, decided the Court has Because the of that decision. merits my reservations about express must plaintiff this, the such as hiring case disparate-impact members of excludes challenged practice show that must inci- their disproportionate group numbers protected made Respondents employees.3 potential pool dence by prov- facie case though prima sufficient, strong, out a York in the New using of those that about ing 63% about Hispanic black or City area are 20% those one of belongs to a whole population, relevant n must Court I fair as the groups.4 conclude, think it parties’ of the even carefully briefed this Court without been has Ante, 583-584, 24. The Court at n. suggesting possibility of a remand.” however, only below, after judgment the Title YII is able to overturn key fact, findings of reversing the District Court’s some of contest, grounds not aired at all in parties strongly that were infra, infra, at Appeals. See n. District Court or n. (1977). ante, 584; Rawlinson, 321, 329 Dothard v. 433 U. S. See religion, race, color, sex, or national The failure to hire is not “because of” origin relationship challenged practice to one of those if the adverse Griggs purely matter of chance—a statistical coincidence. See factors is 1964, Co., (1971); Rights 424, v. Duke Power 401 430 Civil Act of U. S. (a), (a). Beyond statistically significant 42 the U. S. C. §703 §2000e-2 participation programs race and in methadone relationship between shown high figures here, respondents direct that the introduced evidence disqualified frequency among group just of minorities was not a chance 15, 7 and aberration. See nn. infra. 4 proper percentage Respondents The Court asserts that is 36.3. figures for the York Standard Metro upon relied the 1970 census New Hispanic. politan Area work force: black and Statistical 5.1% 15.0% accept figure. for Petitioners 53. And the Petitioners Brief 20%

599 have, that blacks and Hispanics suffer much three times as operation from the of the challenged excluding rule methadone users one would expect practice. from neutral Thus, excluding those who been in programs have “operate ineligible to render a markedly disproportionate [s] number” of Hispanics. Co., blacks and Griggs Duke Power v. 429 (1971). U. S. 424,

In to response says this, Court statistic 63% was limited sought not to those who worked for or to for petitioners work and to successfully those who been have maintained on methadone, and that include not those does Ante, in private clinics. at I 584-586. in the first suggest, place, that facially these attacks on statistics should valid been have made Ap and the Court peals, Dothard see v. Rawlinson, (1977); 321, U. S. the first contention was not even Court. It also made petitioners seems me complain little about makeup insofar as the applicant of the is pool concerned since grounds refused on of irrelevancy discovery of to allow background racial applicants employment denied pursuant to the methadone rule. I event, agree cannot with the Court’s assertions that

this evidence if anything,” nothing,” “reveals little us “tells is “virtually Ante, irrelevant.” at 585-586.5 There is not apparently District Court figure correct, did so also. No matter which disparate is still impact. there quotes States, The Court Teamsters v. United 431 U. S. n. 20 (1977), showing figures the effect that “‘evidence for the general population might accurately qualified pool job reflect the applicants’ significance Ante, figures.” undermines the such at put n. 29. “evidence”; only Petitioners have not on such we have hypotheses, facially unlikely Court’s ones that. Under the Federal Evidence, admissibly relevant, Rules of to be evidence tend must establish a that, material fact. This does evidence definition probative unrebutted evidence the material fact to make sufficient prima out a facie case. apply employ- do for users doubt that methadone shadow users all of methadone because petitioners, with and ment 63% that a conclude every there is reason to Hispanic, or are black these are also from apply users who majority rejected due are applicants minority Almost all groups. 5% meth- Hispanic and undoubtedly many black rule, Why propor- would rejected. users those among adone petitioners fewer of work tionally them than whites secure gives no reason challenged practice? The Court absent and where rejecting for inference, sensible whatsoever this I would depends knowledge, much on local the inference so purport rather accept judgment of the Court than District from banks independent judgment make an I I seek very least, said, At would Potomac. as have Appeals. of the Court of views minority make complains groups if

The Court even an of methadone-user statistic is up applicants 63% found indicator of the composition group insufficient wrongly by the Court to have been excluded —that or year for successfully those have been maintained is, I blacks cannot, presume more. with the Court that however, Hispanics likely will be whites to less than succeed I until methadone. would have thought presumption, rebutted, success, would be one of an equal chance been no there has rebuttal. as to

Finally, composition patients the racial I private clinics, note first that the District Court found that “[bjetween methadone maintained 62% 65% City in New York Hispanic are black and . . . finding at 279/ The for was the total population,

just public assuming clinics. Even that the wishes finding clearly to overturn this of fact I see no erroneous, support doing so. evidence from In- the Methadone Center University formation at Rockefeller indicated that patients of all in the metropolitan area were black or 61% (with Rican undefined). Puerto This was based on 5.85% 1,400-patient “was sample, according Center, to the which, very accurately drawn on a random reflects the total basis and population sup Metropolitan City” (emphasis York New plied). is which There no reason believe that this study, in its reporting of races patients the number of all total public both private included did include not clinics, private programs in its And racial-composition figures.6 even if everyone unlikely in private highly the clinics were a white, assumption challenged best,7 at the rule would auto still matically a substantially greater exclude of blacks number Hispanics practice racially than would a with a neutral effect. all I accept

With due respect, making would the statistics as suggest Petitioners that the did not private evidence include clinics since the Center does not information receive from them. this ob Had jection been, been raised in the District Court as should have re spondents opportunity would had the have to remove doubt about private whether the evidence programs. included Moreover, support in suggestion, petitioners rely of their upon two isolated statements that directly study do question. not discuss the Dr. Lukoff testified that private report the clinics to the FDA but not to the “Rockefeller Insti register,” tute 1,500 patients and he that estimated there were about (Jan. unreporting 9, 1975) such clinics. (emphasis supplied). Tr. Dole, University professor Dr. a at physician Rockefefier and senior at University the Hospital, testified that “the methadone data center . . . computerized inventory 40,000 maintains the aü patients on in treat ment” programs Id., and that of the known report, presume.” I “[a]ll (Jan. 7, 1975) (emphasis supplied). testify “[tjhe He did major public” most detañed documentation programs, comes from the “comprise 25,000 about 40,000” out patients. the methadone remaining patients, As to program “simpl[e] registry his stiff had Id., short, information . . . .” at 115-116. majority’s unsupported effort to undermine findings the District merely Court’s of fact estab or, lishes wisdom of either on the remanding assump Court’s evident Appeals tion that Court would have judg affirmed the Title VII abiding ment, by the “two-court rule.” 7The evidence before the District Court established that heroin 80% City metropolitan area, addicts in the New York source clients for public private clinics, both Hispanic. are black or the case impact. Obviously, disparate prima facie case in dis- unjustified this Court stronger, could been but uncontradicted, acceptance placing Court’s the District goes sensing Perhaps that, evidence. relevant it was made prima showing was say if facie such “job related.” fact the rule is rebutted job relatedness. showing Petitioners burden of had quality higher results in a They did show that the rule or that necessary, labor that such labor force force, on methadone making about cost of individual decisions those equal protection prohibitive. as shown Indeed, was infra, showing have not close petitioners discussion come a “demonstrably measure present that rule reasonable one could job Griggs, 401 436. No performance.” S.,U. at reasonably petitioners made the kind of show- argue that Moody, by Griggs Paper demanded or Co. ing Albemarle v. see By petitioners’ stipulation, 422 n. (1975). U. S. 405 own employment adopted “without infra, barrier was 14, study relationship job-performance meaningful [its] ability.” Washington 431. Griggs, supra, As we stated at Davis, 229, (1976), v. 426 U. S. Title VII “involves a more judicial the seem- probing of, to, review and less deference ingly reasonable than is acts administrators executives unlike appropriate Therefore, under the Constitution . .” . . ante, I at 587 n. think it insufficient that majority, employment relationship the rule as a whole some so has long readily part as does identifiable and severable not.

II I disagree disposition equal also with the of the Court’s protection light claim in facts established below. conclusively District Court found that evidence established petitioners employment that exclude from who all successfully on methadone maintenance —that is, those year of heroin, after one are “free the use illicit other (SDNY problem Supp. 1032, drugs, drinking,” F. pro- from methadone 1975) graduated those who have —and past grams years;8 free for less than five and remain about part, there is confusion Because the rule is unwritten in relevant formerly those who scope. The Court asserts that it does not exclude its question of methadone, the District “did not settle the used and that fact, respect Ante, 3. policy TA in this . . .” at 572 n. what enforces . automatically openly they exclude former however, petitioners admit that have had completely drug been free and methadone users unless “have history years.” And I for at least five Brief for Petitioners 5. stable quote finding is unlike the District Court’s actual context majority: described subject relatively be to the

“It is clear recent methadone user would exclusionary there policy. However, the TA indicated that blanket has flexibility respect once used might person be some to a who had years methadone, period but had been free of such use for a of five more.” 399 F. at litigants” over dispute

The Court finds no “concrete between adverse relief under because no former user is entitled to former-users injunction. Ante, Frasier respondent the District But Court’s at 573 n. 3. user, expressly ante, 576-577, is a former see n. and the District Court granted relief, rejected including backpay him as a from the time he was App. former recent methadone user. to Pet. for Cert. 77a-78a. The Court using says finding no the District Court erred in facts that Frasier was solely April petitioners him 1973 and that refused to hire narcotics prior, I apparently of his treatment. As because successful methadone clearly Court, read the facts as recited the District Court was argument correct, petitioners preserved in in but event have not Proposed Findings or of Fact Appeals the Court here. See Defendants’ 1974) (Frasier successfully (filed “purportedly” graduated 6-7 Oct. program and, 19, 1973, though from the methadone on March otherwise 1973). rejected history” eligible, April 2, due to “his was See also ante, J., dissenting part). at 596 n. 4 in relevant (Powell, apparently injunction

The Court reads the District Court’s protecting persons year programs those who had been in or methadone they longer before were cured. It is incredible that the District Court punished triumph those would have able to over heroin addiction year. order, And context of the in less than a District Court’s com- respondent grant Frasier, bined of relief to makes it clear that with good protect, so, intended to and had reason all former the court to do present or successful methadone mean- maintenance is not ingful predictor of poor performance job in conduct most categories; petitioners that employee- could use their normal screening separate mechanisms to successfully maintained from exactly users the unsuccessful; petitioners do that that for other groups common might that sense indicates also be suspect employees.9 challenge these Petitioners did not factual conclusions court Appeals, Court but that nonetheless reviewed the over- evidence and found that it whelmingly supported findings. District Court’s 2d, at 99. It repeating, bears both the District then, Court and the Appeals found those who year been maintained on at least a and who are from easily free the use of be iden- drugs illicit and alcohol can through great tified for a personnel procedures and, normal many no more risk jobs, employable present are as as and applicants than general population. from the Though petitioners’ argument primarily here is an attack upon factfinding directly accept the Court does not below, Instead, thesis. it concludes that the District Court and of Appeals misapplied the Court both Protection Equal successfully methadone users as well as those current users who have been year. maintained for more than a 9Respondents presented experts top large numerous in this field and employers experienced with former heroin treated users with methadone. days trial, Both sides rested after six but the District Court demanded days development, inspec nine more of further factual and an 8-hour petitioners’ facilities, tion of because did not believe that the evidence one-sidedly respondents’ correctly could be so favor. The court realized responsibility public-law type its in a case of this to demand the whole story making ruling. Chayes, before a constitutional See The Role of the Judge Litigation, (1976). Public Law 89 Harv. L. Rev. 1281 District Court called own, primarily six witnesses of its and it them chose because had written articles on methadone petition maintenance that unreliability ers asserted had shown the of that dealing method of correctly expressed addiction. It also judg heroin its refusal to base its shifting opinions. ment on medical the can reach however, On one found,

Clause. facts as the constraint no real only imposes, Court’s result if that Clause at all in this situation. question placing

The rationality before us is the success- cate- fully persons in same recently maintained or cured gory just addiction or attempting escape as those to heroin who have escape it, general than with the failed rather population.10 challenged justification asserted objective work capable classification is the reliable employability. force, question and thus the characteristic in par- “Employability,” mean that regard, does not given group ticular much applicant, every less member of a will applicants, turn out to be a model worker. Nor does it mean no such or applicant that will ever become be dis- covered to heroin malingerer, be or even thief, alcoholic, All employers addict. take such Employability, risks. successfully Court used it maintained reference employer means more users, no likely to find a unsatisfactory member of group to be an employee than he an employee general would from the chosen population. every

Petitioners had opportunity, presented nothing but negative employability successfully maintained metha- done users as distinguished from those were unsuccessful. Instead, like petitioners, dwell on Court, the methadone quit failures —those who programs but who remain turn drug to illicit use. The much Court, instance, makes many use of of those in methadone programs, including those who have been in programs such for more year. Ante, than one at 576, and n. 10. But this has little force 10The rule’s treatment of those who succeed is at here, issue since effectively District Court complaint allege amended the discrimination against subgroup, see Rule (b), implicitly Fed. Civ. Proc. found no respect constitutional violation with to others burdened practice. since those are can and have been “successful,” not be ante, despite the such, 574-575,11and, identified as see at Court’s ante, put them are not within there, 33, efforts to see at n. protection injunction. of the Court’s That 20% pro- year after one a methadone unsuccessful 30% of gram nothing employability tells us the success- about the category applicants ful is that group, and it the latter held to be unconsti- Appeals District Court and the Court of them tutionally by disqualifying burdened rule blanket employment. from therefore Appeals were

The District Court and the Court reasonably fully justified finding petitioners could not that employable is protected group have concluded that less no general excluding “has population than the and that it per- jobs rational relation to 12 to be the demands formed.” the Court assumes Supp., fact, at 1057. F. petitioners’ policy excluding unnecessarily that is broad ante, successfully recently maintained at cured, and the group adequate pre- that a member of can be that selected Ante, validity of Despite cision. at 574D575. the ex- this, the portion upheld clusion is the rational of the uninvolved basis many rule, that the rule excludes who are less is, employable. be- petitioners justify But must the distinction just tween groups, to which have attached purpose the classification. The of the rule is as whole poor The evidence indicates that risks will shake out a methadone program maintenance within six months. at 1048-1049. It 1-year a measure of the District Court’s caution that set a standard. 12 major sponsor A Act, recent amendments to the Rehabilitation ante, see 580-581, congressional n. described the determination being behind public them as that a employer history “cannot assume that a addiction, including alcoholism or past currently addiction treated maintenance, poses danger Sufficient in and of itself to justify employment]. exclusion assumption an Such would [from no Cong. basis in fact . . . .” 124 (1978) (Sen. Williams). Rec. 37510 rule serves the only if the classification within the

relevant so. is not purpose, majority’s assumption but the admits furthered is not Justification exclusion blanket of total exclu- “any special rule short the statement rule. likely current precise” sion to be less than the ... Ante, District Court at 590. If the rule were narrowed as re- it would in one ordered, operate precisely more at least ex- many longer for be spect, employable persons would no “bright line,” cluded. Nor does the provide current rule is nothing magic years for there five after point about the among “regression” treatment has ended. There ais risk of those who have never used cannot and the Court methadone, overcome the readily District finding Court’s that a ascertain- point able exists at the the risk has so decreased recently maintained or person generally employable cured as anyone as else.13

Of course, District permitting Court’s order total ex- clusion of all methadone users one maintained less than year, successfully whether or some not, would still exclude employables and would to this “Over- be overinclusive. extent inclusiveness” as primary to the objective employability is accepted for less successful methadone users it ful- because secondary fills a purpose thus and is not “overinclusive” at Bradley, ante, all. See Vance v. Although many at 109. of those successfully who have not been maintained for year are employable, protected as a class unlike the they, group, employable general population. as the not Thus, assuming even the bad risks could be serv- identified, ing end of employability require would unusual efforts likely determine those more legitimate revert. But that person Though year might free of illicit use for one subse quently revert, graduated programs those who have might from methadone also, apparently do so and the Court employment believes that exclu constitutionally ante, sion not could be 572-573, extended to them. See ante, 591-592, n. n. (Powell, dissenting 37. See also at 596-597 J., part). relevant secondary goal by excluding protected is not fulfilled class: The participa- found that of successful the fact year nor- through petitioners’ tion one could be discovered I screening process mal without and, repeat, additional effort likely that those who meet no that criterion are more than the average applicant poor employees.14 to turn be Ac- out to

14Since the District Court found as a fact that bad risks could be group through from this processing employment culled normal only applications, possible justification for this rule is that eliminates petitioners applications which time would invest some and effort before person unemployable. finding problem, however, is that not everyone general population employable. in the Thus, if vacancies are filled, be individualized hiring any decisions must be made event.

The fact of methadone use somehow, applica- must be determined so all read, petitioners require tions must at least be applicants all under many existing employees, urinalysis. to submit Reading appli- may cations disclose the fact of methadone use but also whether person qualifications has certain educational or other and whether he employment or she has had experience job-related a stable recent difficulties. says petitioners

The Court that by having verify would be burdened applicant that a methadone program. was successful in his But program itself fact, verifies that District Court found that all petitioners get would have to do is program, touch with the and that essentially “this no different from obtaining relevant references for other types applicants.” of at 1050 n. "3. A expert number of witnesses testified that the methadone clinics have far more information patients personnel their about than ordinarily officers hope could acquire. The Court fears that programs might some of the not be reliable, but the District Court found that most are and ruled that petitioners any do applicant not have to hire “where there is reason to reliability doubt of” the information applicant’s furnished Id., 1058; accord, id., clinic. at at Consequently, 1050 n. 3. I see no all, error error, at much less clear in the District Court’s finding of fact petitioners perform that screening “can for methadone maintenance basically patients way the same as in the case of other prospective employees.” Id., 1048; accord, id., at 1037 and 1050 n. 3. supervision As of those hired, who are they present the fact that no greater any employee risk than other any eliminates the need for special supervision, except perhaps a personnel notation on their files that successfully maintained cordingly, the rule’s classification general population from the dispositively as different persons irrationality with its justification and, is left without Equal Pro- before the invidiousness thus must fall uncovered, tection Clause.15 safety-sensitive positions. The District Court assigned not be

need employees all their petitioners’ monitoring fact that methods of found as a just they are used persons methadone maintenance as “can be used for on Id., at . . . .” for other easy chal difficulty conclusion that the

15 I have also with Court’s “by any “[q]uite plainly” special not motivated animus lenged rule was group persons.” Ante, 40. Heroin addic against specific at 593 n. population com special poor, addict problem is a and the tion recognized largely previously that the has posed of racial minorities majoritarian neglect. powerless subjects politically and historical interests in common on methadone maintenance have few Persons unlikely majority, their and thus are to have interests members considered, decisionmaking. Indeed, governmental protected, or even drug policy stipulated for the . . . petitioners that of the reasons “[o]ne [petitioners] public an reaction would is the fact adverse fee[l] [petitioners] employed persons generally if known result it were prior history drug abuse, including persons participating in with a programs.” App. methadone maintenance 83A. It is hard for me to against past stipulation reconcile that of animus former addicts with our politically group holdings unpopular harm that “a bare . . . desire to Dept. legitimate governmental States cannot constitute a interest.” United Agriculture Moreno, (1973). hand, v. 413 U. S. On the other petitioners sympathetic, the afflictions to are more such as alco illness, black, mental are shared rich and holism and both white poor. Arling- history weight given be to the of the rule. See

Some should also Heights Housing Metropolitan Corp., ton v. Dev. 429 U. S. 267-268 (1977). admit not the result of a reasoned Petitioners that was ability stipulated they had decision and never studied the of those perform petitioners’ jobs. to are not methadone maintenance Petitioners directly type body public, accountable to the are not the of official that by normally legislative judgments upon makes those relied fact such as majority today, by and are nature more effi- concerned business ciency public policies other re- than with for which have no direct Hampton Wong, sponsibility. 88, 103, (1976). v. Mow Sun Cf. 426 U. S. ante, City York, But see at 592. Both the State and of New which do wrong, Finally, even were the District Court and even were successfully persons marginally employable maintained less only average than the exclusion of applicant,16 the blanket actually unemployable these when but a few people, are and many unemploy- when groups varying other numbers of have able is arbitrary Many and members, per- unconstitutional. persons exhibit those democratic characteristics, pro- hire methadone grams jobs. for similar together point strongly

These factors a conclusion of invidious dis- Court, however, The crimination. refuses to view this rule as one “circum- scrib[ing] by a class of unpopular characterized some trait affiliation,” ante, 593, admittedly justified many at applied because it is as current and former challenged heroin addicts. Because classification unfairly only portion addicts, burdens of all heroin the Court reasons that possibly spurred by cannot “ruling majority.” have been animus shows, however, question All that is that legiti- characteristic in is a circumstances; mate basis of distinction in some heroin addiction is a seri- ous affliction employability. antipathy that will often affect But sometimes beyond extends may given it, facts have when that rise happens “stereotyped may reaction no relationship— rational pure prejudicial other than purpose discrimination —to the stated for which being classification is v. Lucas, made.” Mathews 427 U. 520- S. (1976) (Stevens, J., dissenting; omitted). footnote That is the case here. 16The District Court physical found that common effects methadone sweating, maintenance are increases in insomnia, constipa tion, and a decrease in Supp., sex drive. 399 F. at 1044^-1045. Those hardly disabilities are but inability unfortunate related to to be a sub way janitor. This employability Court hints that of even those suc cessfully being might maintained be obliga reduced their Ante, appear tion their at clinics three times a 588-589, week. at n. employees But petitioners all have outside obligations, have neither argued proved nor particular duty would interfere with work. possible District Court did find but rare effect of methadone impairment “required is minor of abilities performance for the poten- tially tasks, driving hazardous such as or operating machinery,” car F. exempted and the court from the relief ordered such positions subway motorman, Id., require “unique sensitivity.” at 1052. But this does not make rational the blanket exclusion from all jobs, regardless qualifications required.

sons now suffer from or may again handicap suffer from some employability.17 related to petitioners singled But out have respondents former ex-offenders, alcoholics and mental —unlike diabetics, patients, currently epileptics, using and those tran- quilizers, for example sacrifice to this at best ethereal —for likely nonexistent risk increased unemployability. arbitrary assignment Such an among burdens classes that similarly are with respect situated proffered to the objectives type is the of invidious choice Equal forbidden Protec- tion Clause.18 found, petitioners challenged, District Court not problem present

current employment drinkers do more an risk than respondents. automatically discharge do Petitioners employees drinking problem. Id., are found to have at 1058. argues The Court [petitioners that “the fact resources have] expend problem on employees one class of does not itself establish a part duty up constitutional on to come spend with [their] resources problem employees.” Ante, all 591-592, classes of respondents n. 37. If demanding were program to have the benefit of a rehabilitation extended them, petitioners perhaps argue could for freedom to deal problem one at a time due to limited resources. Lee See Williamson v. Optical Co., (1955). situation, 348 U. S. In that the lack of resources, experiment field, might or the desire to in a limited legiti be a objective explaining respondents mate the classification. But are not ask ing special, treatment; asking why beneficial they should be absolutely opportunity compete petitioners’ excluded from the jobs. notes Ashwander TV 297 v. U. S. concurring). J., 23Respondents suggest that properly the lower courts reached the con Equal stitutional issue first because under the Clause could Protection members, (who including pre all the class white methadone users sumably 1981) standing do not in this case under Title VII or § backpay, complaint. all of including sought obtain the relief in their addition, they point argument to TA’s 1981 are Title VII § they against unconstitutional insofar authorize relief state subdivision any allegation proof without direct of intentional discrimination. Cf. Fitzpatrick Bitzer, Usery, League 445; v. 427 U. S. National Cities v. Washington 833; Fry States, Davis, 229; 426 U. S. v. v. U. S. United 542; Morgan, 421 U. S. Katzenbach v. 384 U. S. 641. Under this latter point, argued quite it properly that the District address Court decided to constitutionality municipal agency’s hiring practices of a before addressing constitutionality Congress. of two Acts of validity respondents’ explanations the theoretical for the Whatever actions of the District Court' and Appeals, the Court of the fact remains speculate we are forced about what motivated them because explained despite never their haste to address a naked issue constitutional presence statutory case of alternative It also bears theories. noting opinion that in its second District Court TA’s did decide that statute, decision, addressing violated a federal and its without statutory virtually issue, provided a constitutional basis for all of the relief ultimately therefore, it Had it issue, awarded. it confronted the presumably would have concluded that it could have decided the case initially addressing the without constitutional issue which it decided the ease. Appeals statutory The failure of the Court of address issue not, course, prevent decided District Court does this from reaching University Regents Bakke, the issue. Cf. v. of California appropriate U. S. conclude that it We to reach the issue case, fully rather than it to Appeals, remand the Court of it because was Court, before application legal aired the District involves of settled principles facts, carefully to uncontroversial and it has been briefed

Case Details

Case Name: New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Mar 26, 1979

Citation: 440 U.S. 568

Docket Number: 77-1427

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS