In the case of New York City Transit Authority et al. v. Beazer et al., 1978, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA). The NYCTA had a policy that excluded individuals who were users of narcotics, including methadone which is used for heroin addiction treatment, from employment. This policy was challenged by Beazer and others on grounds that it violated their rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Equal Protection Clause as they were recovering addicts undergoing methadone maintenance treatment. However, the court held that this exclusionary rule did not violate these provisions because it could be justified by safety concerns and operational efficiency needs within transit operations. Furthermore, while acknowledging disparate impact on minority groups due to higher rates of drug addiction among them compared to general population, court found no evidence suggesting intentional racial discrimination behind NYCTA's policy.

In the dissenting opinion for New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority had failed to properly apply the standard of review in cases involving equal protection claims. He contended that there was no rational basis for a blanket ban on methadone users, as it did not take into account individual circumstances or capabilities and thus violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on administrative convenience as justification for this policy, stating that such reasoning could be used to justify any discriminatory practice. Finally, he expressed concern about how this decision would impact other marginalized groups who might also face discrimination based on stereotypes rather than actual ability or performance.