24 C.F.R. § 8.11

Reasonable accommodation

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A recipient shall make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified applicant with handicaps or employee with handicaps, unless the recipient can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its program.

(b) Reasonable accommodation may include:

(1) Making facilities used by employees accessible to and usable by individuals with handicaps and

(2) Job restructuring, job relocation, part-time or modified work schedules, acquisitions or modification of equipment or devices, the provision of readers or interpreters, and other similar actions.

(c) In determining, under paragraph (a) of this section, whether an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of a recipient's program, factors to be considered include:

(1) The overall size of the recipient's program with respect to number of employees, number and type of facilities, and size of budget;

(2) The type of the recipient's operation, including the composition and structure of the recipient's workforce; and

(3) The nature and cost of the accommodation needed.

(d) A recipient may not deny any employment opportunity to a qualified handicapped employee or applicant if the basis for the denial is the need to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental limitations of the employee or applicant.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1994–2014 · leading case: Shapiro v. Cadman Towers, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 116 (E.D.N.Y 1994).
Shapiro v. Cadman Towers, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 116 (E.D.N.Y 1994). “103 (Federal Election Commission); 24 C.F.R. § 8.11 (Department of Housing and Urban Development).”
Weatherford v. Nevada Rural Hous. Auth., 946 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (D. Nev. 2013). “505 (d), 24 C.F.R. § 8.11 , 24 C.F.R. § 8.28 (a)(5), and 24 C.”
Charlotte Weatherford v. Nevada Rural Hous. Auth., 588 F. App'x 709 (9th Cir. 2014). “See 24 C.F.R. §§ 8.11 , 8.28, 8.33, 982.505, 982.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.