28 C.F.R. § 35.134
Retaliation or coercion
(a) No private or public entity shall discriminate against any individual because that individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this part, or because that individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the Act or this part.
(b) No private or public entity shall coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by the Act or this part.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Shotz v. City of Plantation, FL, 344 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2003).
Shotz v. City of Plantation, FL, 344 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2003). “26 Not only does the agency’s construction here survive this low threshold of judicial scrutiny, but the interpretation is a reasonable one as well. The text of § 12203 sets out both rights- and duty-creating language, and we cannot say that Congress intended to preclude…”
Barker v. Riverside Cnty. Off. of Educ., 584 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2009). “28 C.F.R. § 35.134 (emphasis added). As in our analysis of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the language employed in the anti-retaliation provisions of Title II does not evince a congressional intent to limit standing to individuals with disabilities.”
Adem A. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826 (11th Cir. 2007). “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.134 . The DOJ defines a “private entity” as “a person or entity other than a public entity.”
Andino v. Fischer, 698 F. Supp. 2d 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). “§ 1983 ; 28 C.F.R. § 35.134 ; and the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.”
A.C. Ex Rel. J.C. v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 711 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2013). “§ 12203 and 28 C.F.R. 35.134 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794 (a) and 29 C.”
Baird ex rel. Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 1999). “§ 12203 (a) (stating that “[n]o person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter” (emphasis added)); see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.134 (b) (1998) (stating that “[n]o private or public entity shall…”
Alston v. Dist. of Columbia, 561 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2008). “28 C.F.R. § 35.134 . Furthermore, “private entity” is defined as “a person or entity other than a public entity;” a “public entity” includes “any state or local government.”
Datto v. Harrison, 664 F. Supp. 2d 472 (E.D. Pa. 2009). “With respect to the ADA’s retaliation provision, it states: Because this section prohibits any act of retaliation or coercion in response to an individual’s effort to exercise rights established by the Act .”
Vazquez v. Mun. of Juncos, 756 F. Supp. 2d 154 (D.P.R. 2010). “28 C.F.R. § 35.134 (a). However, the Court is perplexed by Plaintiffs’ failure to further develop their retaliation claims in Plaintiffs’ motion in opposition to summary judgment.”
Hesling v. Avon Grove Sch. Dist., 428 F. Supp. 2d 262 (E.D. Pa. 2006). “§ 12203 (a); see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.134 (stating “[n]o private or public entity shall coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised .”
Young v. City of Claremore, Okla., 411 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (N.D. Okla. 2005). “134 , Plaintiff appears to allege the following as evidence of retaliation: (1) Officer Rick Jones, who arrested him on October 26, 2003, allegedly stated that “I have been reading about you and waiting for you Mr. Young, and I have been looking forward to issuing you this…”
Norman v. Texas Dep't of Crim. Just., Inst. Div., 293 F. App'x 285 (5th Cir. 2008). “He has not come forth with any evidence showing that these acts were committed in retaliation for the grievances he filed claiming discrimination due to his mental or physical disability.”
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.