(a) General. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part does not prohibit discrimination against an individual based on that individual's current illegal use of drugs.
(2) A public entity shall not discriminate on the basis of illegal use of drugs against an individual who is not engaging in current illegal use of drugs and who—
(i) Has successfully completed a supervised drug rehabilitation program or has otherwise been rehabilitated successfully;
(ii) Is participating in a supervised rehabilitation program; or
(iii) Is erroneously regarded as engaging in such use.
(b) Health and drug rehabilitation services. (1) A public entity shall not deny health services, or services provided in connection with drug rehabilitation, to an individual on the basis of that individual's current illegal use of drugs, if the individual is otherwise entitled to such services.
(2) A drug rehabilitation or treatment program may deny participation to individuals who engage in illegal use of drugs while they are in the program.
(c) Drug testing. (1) This part does not prohibit a public entity from adopting or administering reasonable policies or procedures, including but not limited to drug testing, designed to ensure that an individual who formerly engaged in the illegal use of drugs is not now engaging in current illegal use of drugs.
(2) Nothing in paragraph (c) of this section shall be construed to encourage, prohibit, restrict, or authorize the conduct of testing for the illegal use of drugs.
Notes of Decisions
Richard Vos v. City of Newport Beach, 892 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2018).
“28 C.F.R. § 35.131 (a). Because the district court concluded there was no failure to accommodate, it did not address the VOS V.”
Blatch Ex Rel. Clay v. Hernandez, 360 F. Supp. 2d 595 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
“28 C.F.R. § 35.131 (a)(l)(2005); and that This part does not require a public entity to provide to individuals with disabilities personal devices, such as wheelchairs; individually prescribed devices, such as prescription eyeglasses or hearing aids; readers for personal use or…”
J.H. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 30 P.3d 79 (Alaska 2001).
“Although Jane's claim that she qualifies as a disabled person by virtue of drug addiction is questionable under ADA regulations, see 28 CFR. § 35.131, we accept it for present purposes, and we also assume arguendo that the ADA governs CINA proceedings.”
Colorado State Bd. of Med. Examiners v. Davis, 893 P.2d 1365 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 35.131 (1994). Current illegal use of drugs includes uses “that occurred recently enough to justify a reasonable belief that a person’s drug use is current or that continuing use is a real and ongoing problem.”
Firman v. Dep't of State, State Bd. of Med., 697 A.2d 291 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997).
“Firman then mounts a challenge to Section 40(b) of the Medical Practice Act based on Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause.”
JEFFREY O. v. City of Boca Raton, 511 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2007).
“28 C.F.R. § 35.131 (a)(2) states "[a] public entity shall not discriminate on the basis of illegal use of drugs against an individual who is not engaging in the current use of drugs and who — ” is participating in a *1347 supervised rehabilitation program or successfully…”
Campbell v. Minneapolis Pub. Hous. Auth., 175 F.R.D. 531 (D. Minnesota 1997).
“Housing authorities must differentiate between current drug and alcohol abusers or those engaged in a pattern of abuse, from those who had — but have solved — such a problem in the past.”
Hunsaker v. Contra Costa Cnty., 149 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1998).
“28 C.F.R. § 35.131 . The County does not contest that recovered and recovering drug and alcohol addicts are disproportionately identified as false positives by the test, but argues that disparate impact alone is insufficient to create a prima facie case and that Hunsaker should…”
In Re Curl Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“” 42 USC 12210(b)(2); 28 CFR. §§ 35.131(a)(2)(ii), 36.209(a)(2)(ii); and see, The ADA and Opioid Use Disorder: Combating Discrimination Against People in Treatment or Recovery https://www.”
Cox v. City of Boston (D. Mass. 2024).
“9, quoting 28 C.F.R. § 35.131 (b)(1). Although the City of Boston cites two new cases as contrary authority, see Baustian v.”
In Re Butler Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“See 42 USC 12210(b)(2); 28 CFR 35.131(a)(2)(ii). As stated above, DHHS has an affirmative duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify a family before seeking termination of parental rights, In re Fried, 266 Mich App at 542 , and as a part of those reasonable efforts, DHHS must…”
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.131(a)(2)(ii) — 2 cases
In Re Curl Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“” 42 USC 12210(b)(2); 28 CFR. §§ 35.131(a)(2)(ii), 36.209(a)(2)(ii); and see, The ADA and Opioid Use Disorder: Combating Discrimination Against People in Treatment or Recovery https://www.”
In Re Butler Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“See 42 USC 12210(b)(2); 28 CFR 35.131(a)(2)(ii). As stated above, DHHS has an affirmative duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify a family before seeking termination of parental rights, In re Fried, 266 Mich App at 542 , and as a part of those reasonable efforts, DHHS must…”
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.