(a) Purpose. The purpose of this part is to implement subtitle A of title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12131-12134), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADA Amendments Act) (Pub. L. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (2008)), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities.
(b) Broad coverage. The primary purpose of the ADA Amendments Act is to make it easier for people with disabilities to obtain protection under the ADA. Consistent with the ADA Amendments Act's purpose of reinstating a broad scope of protection under the ADA, the definition of “disability” in this part shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA. The primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether entities covered under the ADA have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not whether the individual meets the definition of “disability.” The question of whether an individual meets the definition of “disability” under this part should not demand extensive analysis.
[AG Order 3702-2016, 81 FR 53223, Aug. 11, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 4× “DOJ's regulations were amended effective March 11, 2011. The parties do not assert that the amended regulations apply to this case, and we assume that the earlier regulations continue to apply.”
People v. Tapley, 2020 IL App (2d) 190137 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 2× “§ 12134; 28 C.F.R. § 35.101 (2019). “Disability” means “[a] physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual.”
Yasmin Reyazuddin v. Montgomery Cnty., Maryland, 789 F.3d 407 (4th Cir. 2015).
“See 28 C.F.R. § 35.101 . Reyazuddin *422 does not argue that the County's asserted obligation arises under the Rehabilitation Act alone, but instead posits that "Title II rules and regulations apply to Section 504.”
Anderson v. Macy's, Inc., 943 F. Supp. 2d 531 (W.D. Pa. 2013).
“These regulations are listed at 28 C.F.R. § 35.101 et seq. . Nor can her Amended Complaint be read to allege such things, even under the most liberal construction.”
Thompson v. State of Colorado, 258 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2001).
“See 28 C.F.R. § 35.101 . Section 35.130(f) provides'as follows: A public entity may not place a surcharge on a particular individual with a disability or any group of individuals with disabilities to cover the costs of measures, such as the provision of auxiliary aids or program…”
Mote v. City of Chelsea, 252 F. Supp. 3d 642 (E.D. Mich. 2017).
“151(c), and that altered streets and pedestrian walkways must contain curb ramps.”
Fetto v. Sergi, 181 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D. Conn. 2001).
“In contrast, the plaintiff asks the Court to compare his treatment to that of certain other disabled individuals-those who receive services in segregated or residential facilities. However, “[t]he Rehabilitation Act does not require all handicapped persons to be provided with…”
Noland v. Wheatley, 835 F. Supp. 476 (N.D. Ind. 1993).
“The regulations specifically provide that although federal agencies are available to hear claims under the ADA, plaintiffs are not required to file with the agencies prior to filing in federal court. 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.170-178 (1993).”
Ability Ctr. of Greater Toledo v. City of Sandusky, 385 F.3d 901 (6th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 35.101 . The scheme makes explicit that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, because a public entity’s facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with, disabilities, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of the…”
Start, Inc. v. Baltimore Cnty., Md., 295 F. Supp. 2d 569 (D. Maryland 2003).
“To the contrary, these provisions themselves express restrictions that “effectuate” Title II’s prohibition against “discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities,” 28 C.F.R. § 35.101 , and the regulations state explicitly that their provisions do not “invalidate…”
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.