28 C.F.R. § 35.130

General prohibitions against discrimination

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

(a) No qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity.

(b)(1) A public entity, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis of disability—

(i) Deny a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service;

(ii) Afford a qualified individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded others;

(iii) Provide a qualified individual with a disability with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others;

(iv) Provide different or separate aids, benefits, or services to individuals with disabilities or to any class of individuals with disabilities than is provided to others unless such action is necessary to provide qualified individuals with disabilities with aids, benefits, or services that are as effective as those provided to others;

(v) Aid or perpetuate discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability by providing significant assistance to an agency, organization, or person that discriminates on the basis of disability in providing any aid, benefit, or service to beneficiaries of the public entity's program;

(vi) Deny a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate as a member of planning or advisory boards;

(vii) Otherwise limit a qualified individual with a disability in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving the aid, benefit, or service.

(2) A public entity may not deny a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in services, programs, or activities that are not separate or different, despite the existence of permissibly separate or different programs or activities.

(3) A public entity may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration:

(i) That have the effect of subjecting qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability;

(ii) That have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the public entity's program with respect to individuals with disabilities; or

(iii) That perpetuate the discrimination of another public entity if both public entities are subject to common administrative control or are agencies of the same State.

(4) A public entity may not, in determining the site or location of a facility, make selections—

(i) That have the effect of excluding individuals with disabilities from, denying them the benefits of, or otherwise subjecting them to discrimination; or

(ii) That have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of the service, program, or activity with respect to individuals with disabilities.

(5) A public entity, in the selection of procurement contractors, may not use criteria that subject qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability.

(6) A public entity may not administer a licensing or certification program in a manner that subjects qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability, nor may a public entity establish requirements for the programs or activities of licensees or certified entities that subject qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability. The programs or activities of entities that are licensed or certified by a public entity are not, themselves, covered by this part.

(7)(i) A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.

(ii) A public entity is not required to provide a reasonable modification to an individual who meets the definition of “disability” solely under the “regarded as” prong of the definition of “disability” at § 35.108(a)(1)(iii).

(8) A public entity shall not impose or apply eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any service, program, or activity, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the service, program, or activity being offered.

(c) Nothing in this part prohibits a public entity from providing benefits, services, or advantages to individuals with disabilities, or to a particular class of individuals with disabilities beyond those required by this part.

(d) A public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.

(e)(1) Nothing in this part shall be construed to require an individual with a disability to accept an accommodation, aid, service, opportunity, or benefit provided under the ADA or this part which such individual chooses not to accept.

(2) Nothing in the Act or this part authorizes the representative or guardian of an individual with a disability to decline food, water, medical treatment, or medical services for that individual.

(f) 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 accessibility, that are required to provide that individual or group with the nondiscriminatory treatment required by the Act or this part.

(g) A public entity shall not exclude or otherwise deny equal services, programs, or activities to an individual or entity because of the known disability of an individual with whom the individual or entity is known to have a relationship or association.

(h) A public entity may impose legitimate safety requirements necessary for the safe operation of its services, programs, or activities. However, the public entity must ensure that its safety requirements are based on actual risks, not on mere speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations about individuals with disabilities.

(i) Nothing in this part shall provide the basis for a claim that an individual without a disability was subject to discrimination because of a lack of disability, including a claim that an individual with a disability was granted a reasonable modification that was denied to an individual without a disability.

[Order No. 1512-91, 56 FR 35716, July 26, 1991, as amended by AG Order No. 3180-2010, 75 FR 56178, Sept. 15, 2010; AG Order 3702-2016, 81 FR 53225, Aug. 11, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,131 cases (366 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Wisconsin Community Services, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee
Wisconsin Community Services, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee (2006) ca7 · cites it 18× “2d at 853 (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 35.130 (b)(7)). D. The Second Proceeding Before the Board of Zoning Appeals On September 12, 2002, BOZA reconvened a public hearing to decide whether, and to what extent, the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act required it to modify its zoning policies…”
Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) scotus · cites it 18× “" 28 CFR § 35.130 (d) (1998). The preamble to the Attorney General's Title II regulations defines "the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities" to mean "a setting that enables individuals with disabilities to interact with…”
Michael Beckem v. Indiana Family and Social Ser (2016) ca7 · cites it 10× “; and states must comply with the ADA’s integration mandate, which dictates that states “shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities,” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130 (d) (1998). B…”
National Federation of the Blind v. Linda Lamone (2016) ca4 · cites it 10× “As one example, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130 (“General prohibitions against discrimination”) directly implements the general antidis-crimination mandate of Title II.”
Garcia v. Dep't of Hous. & Cmty. Dev. (2018) mass · cites it 21× “See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130 (b)(7) (2017). The judge assumed that, where DHCD has made an individualized determination to transfer a family in *950 order to accommodate a disability "when administratively feasible," the shelter bed where the family resides in the interim becomes "ADA…”
M.R. v. Dreyfus (2011) ca9 · cites it 11× “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130 (d). The “most integrated setting” is the one that “en- ables individuals with disabilities to interact with nondisabled persons to the fullest extent possible.”
A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia (2011) ca4 · cites it 6× “28 C.F.R. § 35.130 (b)(4). Thus, ASWAN could reasonably believe that selecting a hill for the location of a facility frequented by a substantial disabled population violates this regulation.”
Todd v. Carstarphen (2017) gand · cites it 16× “2008) (stating that the ADA “recognizes disparate treatment and reasonable accommodation theories”); see 28 C.F.R. § 35.130 (b)(7). 32 To establish a Title II violation under a reasonable accommodation theory, as Ms.”
Mary Jo C. v. New York State and Local Retirement System et ano. (2013) ca2 · cites it 7× “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130 (b)(7). 2 “[A] defendant need not make an accommodation at all if the requested accommodation ‘would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.”
Derek Waskul v. Washtenaw Cnty. Community Mental Health (2020) ca6 · cites it 5× “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130 (d); see also Carpenter-Barker v.”
Teresa Sheehan v. City and County of San Francis (2014) ca9 · cites it 6× “28 C.F.R. § 35.130 (b)(7). We have not previously addressed whether the ADA applies to arrests, see Thompson v.”
Fisher v. Oklahoma Health Care Authority (2003) ca10 · cites it 7× “The first, known as the “integration regulation” or “integration mandate,” provides that “[a] public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities,” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130…”
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(B) — 1 case
In Matter of R.C v. and O.V. (2002) tennctapp
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(B)(2) — 1 case
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a) — 3 cases
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b) — 5 cases
In re Hicks (2016) michctapp
in Re hicks/brown Minors (2016) michctapp
Hainze v. Richards (2000) ca5
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1) — 2 cases
Armstrong v. Davis (2002) ca9
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(ii) — 1 case
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(iii) — 1 case
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3) — 3 cases
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(6) — 1 case
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7) — 37 cases
Chase v. Baskerville (2007) vaed
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)(2016) — 1 case
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)(i) — 5 cases
E.T. v. Paxton (2022) ca5
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(8) — 4 cases
Doe v. Stincer (1997) flsd
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(ii) — 1 case
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(l)(iii) — 1 case
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(l)(iv) — 2 cases
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(l)(v) — 1 case
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d) — 9 cases
Boyd v. Steckel (2010) almd
Granda v. CALPERS (2022) caed
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(f) — 2 cases
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(g) — 4 cases
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(h) — 2 cases
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.