New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer, 440 U.S. 568

Supreme Court of the United States

1979

Chapter

5

Title

Equality and the Constitution

Page

490

Topic

Equal Protection Methodology:  Rational Basis Review

Quick Notes

o         This is a suit regarding a government agency's policy not to hire persons using narcotic drugs, which was applied to persons using methadone.

o         The New York City Transit Authority (TA) rule prohibited employment of person who uses narcotic drugs. 

o         TA applied the rule to person receiving methodone.

o         Methadone is a drug use to treat heroin addiction.

Rule

o         An exclusionary scheme that is not directed against any individual or category of persons, but rather represents a policy choice made by a branch of government entitled to make such choices is constitutional because it does not circumscribe a class of persons characterized by some unpopular trait or affiliation.

Application

o         Under the rational basis review, matters of personnel policy do not implicate the principles safeguarded by the equal protection clause and will be upheld.

Holding

o         The policy does not implicate the principles safeguarded by the Equal Protection Clause

o         The policy furthers the general Objectives of safety and efficiency

o         The policy is not directed against any individual or category of persons

o         The policy does not circumscribe a class by trait or affiliation

o         The policy does not create special likelihood of bias

o         Under these circumstances, it is of no constitutional significance that the degree of rationality is not as great with respect to certain ill-defined subparts of the classification as it is with respect to the classification as a whole.

Book Name

Constitutional Law : Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet.  ISBN:  978-0-7355-7719-0

Issue

o         Whether the government can choose to prohibit employment to an entire class of narcotic drug users?  Yes.

Procedure

Trial

o         The district court held that the policy was unconstitutional.

Appellant

o         United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.

Supreme

o         Reversed

Facts

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules

Pl - New York City Transit Authority

Df - Beazer

Description

o         A The New York City Transit Authority (TA) rule prohibited employment of person who uses narcotic drugs. 

o         TA applied the rule to person receiving methodone.

o         Methadone is a drug use to treat heroin addiction.

Trial Record success of methodone maintenance programs

o         The trial record contains extensive evidence concerning

o  The success of methadone maintenance programs

o  The employability of persons taking methadone, and

o  The ability of prospective employers to detect drug abuse or other undesirable characteristics of methadone users.

District Court Methadone user are employable

o         In general, the District Court concluded that there are substantial numbers of methadone users who are just as employable as other members of the general population.

o         Also normal personnel-screening procedures would enable TA to identify the unqualified applicants on an individual basis.

District Court Recognized at least 1/3 would be unemployable.

o         The District Court recognized that at least one-third of the persons receiving methadone treatment -- and probably a good many more -- would unquestionably be classified as unemployable

 District Court Not tolerate blanket exclusion

o         On these grounds the district court concluded that the Constitution will not tolerate a blanket exclusion of all methadone users from TA employment.

Enjoined

o         The district court then enjoined TA from denying employment to any persons solely because of participation in a methadone maintenance program.

Enjoined authorized exclusions

o         Recognizing, however, the special responsibility for public safety borne by certain TA employees and the correlation between longevity in a methadone maintenance program and performance capability, the injunction authorized TA to exclude methadone users from specific categories of safety-sensitive positions and to condition eligibility on satisfactory performance in a methadone program for at least one year.

Circuit court of appeals

o         Affirmed.

Justice Stevens

District Court TAs rule is broader than necessary

o         At its simplest, the district court's conclusion was that TAs rule is broader than necessary to exclude those methadone users who are not actually qualified to work for TA.

Court Correct and unwise rule

o         We may assume not only that this conclusion is correct, but also that it is unwise for an employer such as TA (D) to rely on a general rule instead of individualized consideration of every job applicant.

Does not implicate the principles safeguarded by the Equal Protection Clause

o         But these assumptions concern matters of personnel policy that do not implicate the principle safeguarded by the Equal Protection Clause.

Furthers the general Objectives of safety and efficiency

o         The special classification created by TA's rule furthers the general Objectives of safety and efficiency.

Not directed against any individual or category of persons

o         Moreover, the exclusionary line challenged by Beazer is not one directed against any individual or category of persons, but rather it represents a policy choice made by a branch of government entitled to make such choices.

Does not circumscribe a class by trait or affiliation

o         The policy does not circumscribe a class of persons characterized by some unpopular trait or affiliation,

Does not create special likelihood of bias

o         The policy does not create or reflect any special likelihood of bias on the part of the ruling majority.

o         Under these circumstances, it is of no constitutional significance that the degree of rationality is not as great with respect to certain ill-defined subparts of the classification as it is with respect to the classification as a whole.

o         The Constitution simply does not authorize a federal court to interfere in TA's policy decision.

Reversed

DISSENT Justice White

Questioning the rationality

o         The question before the Court is the rationality of placing successfully maintained persons or recently cured in the same category as those just attempting to escape heroin addiction or who have failed to escape it, rather than in the general population.

No evidence that methadone users are poor employees

o         TA has produced no evidence to show that those who have used methadone in the past would be poor employees.

Successfully maintained are treated as different from the general population

o         TA's rule of classifying successfully maintained persons as dispositively different from the general population is without justification and must fall before the Equal Protection Clause.

Blanket exclusion is arbitrary and unconstitutional

o         Also, the blanket exclusion of these persons as opposed to others with problems or handicaps is arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional.

Rules

Rule

o         An exclusionary scheme that is not directed against any individual or category of persons, but rather represents a policy choice made by a branch of government entitled to make such choices is constitutional because it does not circumscribe a class of persons characterized by some unpopular trait or affiliation.

Application

o         Under the rational basis review, matters of personnel policy do not implicate the principles safeguarded by the equal protection clause and will be upheld.

Supplement

THREE STANDARDS OF REVIEW

1. Strict Scrutiny:

• Under the strict scrutiny standard, the burden of persuasion is on the government to prove that the measure being challenged is necessary to further a compelling interest.
• The word "necessary" means that there is no less restrictive alternative means available.
• There must be a very close "fit" between the means and the end.
• The government usually fails to prove its burden under strict scrutiny, so the Equal Protection challenge to the law is generally a winning argument (i.e., the law is presumptively invalid).
• Strict scrutiny review applies to
  • (1) suspect classes-race, alienage, and national origin;
  • (2) fundamental rights-right to vote, right to travel, right to privacy; and
  • (3) protected 1st Amendment rights.

2. Intermediate Scrutiny:

• Under the middle-tier standard, the burden of persuasion is generally placed on the government to prove that the measure being challenged is substantially related to an important interest.
• Substantially Related
  • The key term, "substantially related;' means that an exceedingly persuasive justification must be shown. 
• Middle- tier scrutiny is much closer to strict scrutiny than it is to rational basis. 
• Intermediate scrutiny applies to classifications based on the following quasi-suspect areas:
  • (1) gender and
  • (2) illegitimacy; also, a similar, though not identical, test is used for
  • (3) content neutral time, place, manner regulation of free speech.

3. Rational Basis Scrutiny:

• Under the rational basis standard of review, the burden of persuasion is on the plaintiff to show the measure being challenged is not rationally related to any legitimate government interest.
• Rational Relationship
  • Rational relationship is a minimal requirement which means that the law cannot be arbitrary or unreasonable. 
• Practically any police power regulation which furthers a health, safety, or welfare purpose will be found "legitimate: For this reason, laws scrutinized under rational basis are almost always upheld.
• From the plaintiff's standpoint, an equal protection challenge under rational basis is generally a losing argument.
• Rational basis review applies to all classifications not falling under strict or intermediate scrutiny, including social and economic welfare measures and classifications based on age, poverty, wealth, mental retardation, necessities of life (food, shelter, clothing, medical care).

Class Notes