28 C.F.R. § 35.103
Relationship to other laws
(a) Rule of interpretation. Except as otherwise provided in this part, this part shall not be construed to apply a lesser standard than the standards applied under title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791) or the regulations issued by Federal agencies pursuant to that title.
(b) Other laws. This part does not invalidate or limit the remedies, rights, and procedures of any other Federal laws, or State or local laws (including State common law) that provide greater or equal protection for the rights of individuals with disabilities or individuals associated with them.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Tucker v. Tennessee, 539 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2008).
Tucker v. Tennessee, 539 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2008). “" 28 C.F.R. § 35.103 (b). [1] "Commonly Asked Questions About the Americans With Disabilities Act and Law Enforcement," available at http://www.”
Eskenazi-McGibney v. Connetquot Cent. Sch. Dist., 84 F. Supp. 3d 221 (E.D.N.Y 2015). “33 ; 28 C.F.R. § 35.103 . To make out a prima facie case under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must show “(1) that [he] is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that the defendants are subject to [the pertinent statute]; and (3) that [he] was denied the…”
Williams v. City of New York, 121 F. Supp. 3d 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). “§ 794(b)(1)(A), Title II implementing.regulations explain that they “shall not be construed to apply a lesser standard than the standards applied under title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.”
Blatch Ex Rel. Clay v. Hernandez, 360 F. Supp. 2d 595 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “or the regulations issued by Federal agencies pursuant to that title.”); 28 C.”
Marshall v. McMahon, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6406 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). “) which would alter the anti-discriminatory provisions of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (see 28 C.F.R. § 35.103 (1992)). We reject the suggestion that anything to the contrary is to be found in the federal Medicaid law.”
Hope v. Cortines, 872 F. Supp. 14 (E.D.N.Y 1995). “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.103 . Even plaintiffs urge that the Court construe the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act consistently.”
Preston v. Hilton Cent. Sch. Dist., 876 F. Supp. 2d 235 (W.D.N.Y. 2012). “33 ; 28 C.F.R. § 35.103 . In contrast to the IDEA, which is designed to address incorrect or erroneous special education plans, the ADA and Rehabilitation Act address discrimination against disabled students.”
Rb Ex Rel. Lb v. Bd. of Educ. of City, 99 F. Supp. 2d 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). “See 28 C.F.R. § 35.103 (a) (the ADA “shall not be construed to apply a lesser standard than the standards applied under title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973”).”
Henrietta D. v. Giuliani, 119 F. Supp. 2d 181 (E.D.N.Y 2000). “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.103 (a). Hence, “[biased upon the close relationship between the two acts, cases interpreting the Rehabilitation Act are considered persuasive authority for interpreting the ADA.”
Hainze v. Richards, 207 F.3d 795 (5th Cir. 2000). “28 C.F.R. § 35.103 . This section is entitled “Relationship to other laws” and provides in subsection (b): Other laws.”
Petition of Rubenstein, 637 A.2d 1131 (Del. 1994). “See 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.103 (a), 36.103(a) (1991).”
Clarkson v. Coughlin, 145 F.R.D. 339 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). “Further, the proof required under the ADA is substantially identical to that required under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.103 , 36.103. Thus, the inclusion of the proposed ADA claim at this stage in this action would neither work an undue hardship on the…”
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.103(a)(2005) — 1 case
Blatch Ex Rel. Clay v. Hernandez, 360 F. Supp. 2d 595 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “or the regulations issued by Federal agencies pursuant to that title.”); 28 C.”
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.