# New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer

> Supreme Court of the United States · March 26, 1979 · 440 U.S. 568

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427502

## Case

- **Full name:** NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY Et Al. v. BEAZER Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** March 26, 1979
- **Citations:** 440 U.S. 568; 99 S. Ct. 1355; 59 L. Ed. 2d 587; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 77
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brennan
- **Judges:** Brennan, Stevens, Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Powell, Bren-Nan, White, Marshall
- **Cited by:** 568 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427502

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 e…
- 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
- finding city transit system’s “legitimate employment goals of safety and efficiency require the exclusion of all users of illegal narcotics, barbiturates, and amphetamines, and of a majority of all methadone users”

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Brennan,
dissenting.
1 would affirm for the reasons stated in Part I of Mr. Justice White’s dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427502. Public record. Not legal advice.