Are recovering alcohol and drug addicts classified as “disabled” parties who qualify for the protections guaranteed by the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? A California city said no, and the District Court agreed. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, ruled that an incorrect legal standard was applied, and reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment.

In 2014, Costa Mesa passed two new City laws that amended its zoning codes. The ordinances prohibited homes for recovering addicts from being located within 650 feet of similar facilities. Plaintiff/Appellants, SoCal Recovery LLC, RAW Recovery, and Roger Lawson sued the City, arguing that its ordinances discriminated against them on the basis of their disability. They claim that the city violated the Fair Housing Act FHA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Since the new ordinances were passed, 53 accommodation requests were filed. Only three were approved, none going to plaintiffs.

District Judge James V. Selma of The United States District Court for the Southern District of California permitted Costa Mesa’s restriction by granting summary judgment in its favor. After examining whether the “sober living homes” provisions of the three acts protected those living in treatment facilities, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on January 3, that the residents are disabled and thus protected from illegal discrimination.

The unanimous opinion was written by Circuit Justice Mark J. Bennett. It begins by explaining the City’s new laws were an “attempt to reduce the number and concentration of sober living homes in residential neighborhoods.” All homes were required to obtain “special use” permits in order to operate. Sober living homes are defined as “facilit being used as a supportive living environment for persons who are considered handicapped under state or federal law.” Unlike addiction treatment facilities, sober living homes do not require licenses from the state. Therefore, before it passed its 2014 laws, Costa Mesa treated sober living homes the same as all other residences. Applicants could also request “reasonable accommodations.”

SoCal Recovery operates three homes in Costa Mesa. Two are located in single-family areas and house six residents each. The third is in a multi-family residential district and houses 32 persons in recovery. SoCal’s application was denied by the City’s Planning Commission because its facility violated the 650- foot-separation requirement. Co-Appellant RAW recovery operates three sober living homes in Costa Mesa’s multi-family zoning districts. When its application for continued use was also denied, RAW sued Costa Mesa in federal court, arguing its “draconian permitting requirements” were discriminatory. Both companies lost in District Court because they did not prove their residents were disabled and they failed to provide “individualized” evidence for each of their residents.

Plaintiffs then took Costa Mesa to court where Judge Selma granted the City’s summary judgment motions, reasoning that sober living home residents were not “actually disabled.” Plaintiffs asserted that this conclusion was a “triable issue of fact.” During discovery, the City required every SoCal resident to provide his or her comprehensive medical records. SoCal refused, claiming privilege under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

The Ninth Circuit opinion first provided its standard of review for the District Court’s summary judgment decisions. It said that it viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the City, the non-moving party, to determine whether there were any genuine issues of material fact and to see if the district court correctly applied relevant law. It ruled that there were issues and that relevant law was not correctly applied. Individualized evidence of each client’s disability was not needed and there is a “genuine dispute of material fact as to whether their residents are ‘regarded as’ disabled.” The summary judgment regarding FHA, ADA, and FEHA claims was reversed.

Justice Bennet reiterated the purpose of the Costa Mesa law, which was to reduce overconcentration and the “deleterious” effects that sober living homes would have on the residential character of the neighborhoods. This description was not controlling. Rather, the federal and state statutes were. FHA makes it unlawful to discriminate because of disability. ADA is similar and specifically prohibits discretionary zoning laws. Under the ADA, alcohol and drug addiction are specifically classified as disabilities.

In addition, the 650-foot-separation agreement was found to have “Prevented appellants from conducting their normal business operations,” causing them to be “aggrieved by the zoning policies.” The residents, Bennet said, were protected under anti-discrimination laws and did not have to present individualized evidence. The court held that “sober living home operators can satisfy the actual disability prong of the law on a collective basis” if their policies show that they serve those with actual disabilities. They can prove who they serve by showing admission procedures, house rules, and providing the testimony of residents and employees. The District Court had received these types of materials but chose to disregard them because they were not individualized.

For all these reasons, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case to District Court. Bennet listed the errors that Selma had made when he required individual assessments of each resident. Instead, sober living facilities can prove that they serve individuals with disabilities on a collective basis. All summary judgment findings were remanded, and the court must now use the Ninth Circuit’s definitions of disability as it reviews the new municipal laws in Costa Mesa.