The U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago has asked an appeals court to reverse a judge’s decision denying its request to intervene as a plaintiff in Haymarket Center’s long-running lawsuit against Itasca over the village’s rejection of an addiction treatment facility.
The saga began in 2019 when Haymarket proposed a comprehensive substance use and mental health treatment center in Itasca for people from DuPage County and surrounding communities.
Itasca trustees, however, unanimously turned down Haymarket’s zoning request to convert a former Holiday Inn into a 240-bed facility. In response, the nonprofit provider sued the village in January 2022, arguing that officials violated antidiscrimination laws.
According to its original complaint, Haymarket is unique among substance use and mental health treatment facilities in the area because it accepts people for treatment regardless of their ability to pay and provides additional services, including career counseling.
The U.S. attorney’s office sought to intervene in the case to “bring its own claims” under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Earlier this year, U.S. District Court Judge Steven Seeger denied the request, ruling that “Haymarket can stick up for itself.”
“The judge found that the law was on our side,” said Renato Mariotti, an attorney for the village. “So I guess a better question is, why is the United States Justice Department appealing a federal judge’s ruling on the law here, particularly a Justice Department that I think it’s fair to say is not supportive of the Justice Department interfering in local affairs.”
Haymarket President and CEO Dan Lustig lauded the U.S. attorney’s move.
“We applaud this appeal and enthusiastically support the United States’ intervention in this case as ‘it seeks to vindicate not only the rights of (Haymarket) but also the broader public interest in eradicating disability discrimination by public entities,’” Lustig said in a statement, quoting from the appeal brief filed in July.
“For 50 years, Haymarket Center has been a beacon of hope for the underserved as they strive to overcome substance use disorders. When treatment providers are unduly blocked from providing that care due to discrimination, we cannot back down, particularly when the need is so great, treatment options are too few, and lives are at stake.”
The village must submit its response by a September deadline. Itasca has long held that the town lacks the resources to support the treatment facility. Haymarket also faced opposition from many residents.
“I think the village had a fair process, kept the public informed of that process all along, and was just ultimately focused on the impact of a very large facility on a small town,” Mariotti said.
After a rally in Usher Park, a large crowd walked through downtown Itasca in 2019 in opposition to a proposed drug use treatment facility.
John Starks/[email protected], September 2019
The village board voted to reject Haymarket’s application in November 2021. That month, the U.S. attorney’s office informed Itasca it had initiated an investigation of the village regarding compliance with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In June 2024, federal attorneys moved to intervene in the case. The motion alleged that the village “engaged in disparate treatment based on the disabilities of Haymarket’s prospective clients,” by, among other things, “subjecting Haymarket to artificially onerous zoning requirements.” There were 35 hearings over a two-year period, according to their complaint.
In Seeger’s March ruling, however, the judge wrote that Haymarket is “more than capable of defending its own interests,” and that forcing the village “to litigate against Haymarket, plus the federal government, seems like overkill.”
Federal attorneys countered in the appeal brief that the “district court’s misapprehension of the Attorney General’s Title II enforcement authority led to its wrongful denial” of their motion to intervene by right.
The ADA “tasks the Department of Justice with regulatory and enforcement responsibilities under Title II, and therefore, the Department similarly has an interest in the ‘proper and consistent application’ of Title II,” they argued. “Nor can Haymarket adequately represent these Executive Branch interests in this private-party litigation.”
Gerald Steele is the founder of Stonegate Health Rehab. He shares expert insights, recovery tips, and rehab resources to support individuals on their journey to wellness.