(a) A public entity shall, within one year of the effective date of this part, evaluate its current services, policies, and practices, and the effects thereof, that do not or may not meet the requirements of this part and, to the extent modification of any such services, policies, and practices is required, the public entity shall proceed to make the necessary modifications.
(b) A public entity shall provide an opportunity to interested persons, including individuals with disabilities or organizations representing individuals with disabilities, to participate in the self-evaluation process by submitting comments.
(c) A public entity that employs 50 or more persons shall, for at least three years following completion of the self-evaluation, maintain on file and make available for public inspection:
(1) A list of the interested persons consulted;
(2) A description of areas examined and any problems identified; and
(3) A description of any modifications made.
(d) If a public entity has already complied with the self-evaluation requirement of a regulation implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, then the requirements of this section shall apply only to those policies and practices that were not included in the previous self-evaluation.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1190-0006)
[56 FR 35716, July 26, 1991, as amended by Order No. 1694-93, 58 FR 17521, Apr. 5, 1993]
Notes of Decisions
Chaffin v. Kansas State Fair Board (2003)
ca10 · cites it 9×
“On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment directing all of the Defendants except the State of Kansas (hereinafter the Fair) to prepare a self-evaluation and a transition plan pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §§…”
Tyler v. City of Manhattan (1994)
ksd · cites it 12×
“Count I of the plaintiffs complaint alleges that the City of Manhattan has violated Title II of the ADA by failing to prepare and complete a self-evaluation as required by 28 C.F.R. § 35.105 and by failing to prepare and complete a transition plan as required by 28 C.”
Iverson v. City of Boston (2006)
ca1 · cites it 3×
“Count 1 alleged that the self-evaluation and transition plan regulations promulgated by the Attorney General under Title II of the ADA, see 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.105 , 35.150(d), imposed an affirmative obligation on the City both to evaluate its conformance with the ADA and to make…”
Brown v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. (2019)
mdd · cites it 3×
“" 28 C.F.R. § 35.105 (a). Finally, the regulations require the Department to "make available" to disabled inmates information about the ADA and its "applicability" to the Department "and make such information available to them in such manner as the head of the entity finds…”
Carin Memmer v. Marin County Courts (1999)
ca9 · cites it 7×
“Second, she'argues that MCC’s policy of referring accommodation requests to the presiding trial judge violated 28 C.F.R. § 35.105 . We address these claims in turn.”
Tyler v. City of Manhattan (1994)
ksd · cites it 8×
“Count I of his complaint claims that the City has violated the ADA by failing to complete an acceptable self-evaluation as required by 28 C.F.R. § 35.105 and by failing to adopt an acceptable transition plan as required by 28 C.”
Montalvo v. Lamy (2015)
nywd · cites it 4×
“§ 794 (the “Rehabilitation Act”); and 28 C.F.R. § 35.105 (collectively the “statutory claims”).”
Clarkson v. Coughlin (1995)
nysd · cites it 3×
“28 C.F.R. § 35.105 . “Once a public entity has identified policies and practices that deny or limit the participation of individuals with disabilities in its programs, activities, and services, it should take immediate remedial action to eliminate the impediments to full and…”
Pierce v. County of Orange (2008)
ca9
“While Title II regulations require that the County complete a self-evaluation regarding the availability of programs, activities, and services, see 28 C.F.R § 35.105(a), DeHaas conceded that she did not know whether it had been done for the County jails.”
Roe v. Johnson (2004)
nysd · cites it 3×
“28 C.F.R. § 35.105 . The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on March 3, 2004.”
Doe v. Division of Youth and Family Services (2001)
njd
“Moreover, Congress instructed the Attorney General to enact regulations to enforce Title II. See 42 U.S.C. § 12134 . Among other things, those regulations require the States to perform self-evaluations of their existing policies and practices, see 28 C.”
Logan v. Matveevskii (2014)
nysd
“See 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.105 and 35.150(d). It is time for another evaluation by FHEO look at THA Policies New Construction [see 2b C.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.105(a) — 3 cases
Pierce v. County of Orange (2008)
ca9
“While Title II regulations require that the County complete a self-evaluation regarding the availability of programs, activities, and services, see 28 C.F.R § 35.105(a), DeHaas conceded that she did not know whether it had been done for the County jails.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.105(b) — 1 case
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.