holding that transit authority was justified in refusing to hire methadone users for “safety- sensitive” positions
How later courts described this case
- holding that transit authority was justified in refusing to hire methadone users for “safety- sensitive” positions
- holding that Section 1981 “afford no greater substantive protection than Title VII”
- noting that the Court’s equal protection cases have recognized a distinction between “ ‘invidious discrimination’ — i.e., classifications drawn ‘with an evil eye and an unequal hand’ or motivated by ‘a feeling of antipathy’ against, a specific group of residents” — and other evenhanded classifications
- holding the exclusion of those in methadone maintenance programs from employment in the Transit Authority was constitutionally permissible even though many participants would be able to perform the requisite job functions safely
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Kindem v. City of Alameda, 502 F. Supp. 1108 (1980)
440 U.S. 568, 99 S.Ct. 1355, 59 L.Ed.2d 587 (1979), also cited by the City, is distinguishable on a number of grounds: (1) the regulation in
The opinion
Mr. Justice Brennan,
dissenting.
1 would affirm for the reasons stated in Part I of Mr. Justice White’s dissenting opinion.