28 C.F.R. § 35.140
Employment discrimination prohibited
(a) No qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any service, program, or activity conducted by a public entity.
(b)(1) For purposes of this part, the requirements of title I of the Act, as established by the regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1630, apply to employment in any service, program, or activity conducted by a public entity if that public entity is also subject to the jurisdiction of title I.
(2) For the purposes of this part, the requirements of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as established by the regulations of the Department of Justice in 28 CFR part 41, as those requirements pertain to employment, apply to employment in any service, program, or activity conducted by a public entity if that public entity is not also subject to the jurisdiction of title I.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2023 · leading case: Scot L. Zimmerman v. State of Oregon Dep't of Just., 170 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 1999).
Scot L. Zimmerman v. State of Oregon Dep't of Just., 170 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 1999). “Pursuant to that grant of authority, the Attorney Gen *1173 eral has determined that Title II applies to employment: No qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any service, program, or activity…”
Brettler v. Purdue Univ., 408 F. Supp. 2d 640 (N.D. Ind. 2006). “June 7, 1996) (holding that Title II applies to claims of employment discrimination primarily based on the regulations promulgated by the Attorney General, specifically 28 C.F.R. § 35.140 ); Dertz v. City of Chicago, 912 F.”
Mary Jo C. v. New York State & Local Ret. Sys. et ano., 707 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2013). “at 1178 , which provides that Title II does apply to employment actions against public employers, see 28 C.F.R. § 35.140 (a). Contra Bledsoe v.”
Torres v. Junto De Gobierno De Servicio De Emergencia, 91 F. Supp. 3d 243 (D.P.R. 2015). “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.140 (a). *252 Turning to the present case, the court notes that Defendants are correct that the Eleventh Amendment bars private suits seeking monetary damages for state violations of Title I of the ADA.”
Elwell v. Oklahoma, Ex Rel. Bd. of Regents, 693 F.3d 1303 (10th Cir. 2012). “Leaving aside the business of trying to analogize the Rehabilitation Act and Title IX — and in a different vein altogether — Ms.”
Petersen v. Univ. of Wisconsin Bd. of Regents, 818 F. Supp. 1276 (W.D. Wis. 1993). “The regulations promulgated under Title II cross-reference Title I of the Act in outlining the standards by which to judge employment discrimination under Title II of the Act: (b)(1) For purposes of this part, the requirements of Title I of the Act, as established by the…”
Valjeanne Currie v. Grp. Ins. Comm'n, 290 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002). “The words “public services, programs, or activities” do not *7 necessarily exclude employment, 4 and the “subjected to discrimination” clause may broaden the scope of coverage further.”
Linda J. Brumfield v. City of Chicago, 735 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2013). “3 The Attorney General has promulgated a regulation stating that Title II applies to disability discrimination in public employment: “No qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any service,…”
Charbonneau v. Gorczyk, 2003 VT 105 (Vt. 2003). “[2] The fact that plaintiff here, like most individuals with disabilities, insists that with reasonable accommodations his condition does not impose any significant restriction on his ability to work does not preclude a finding that he is disabled, or "regarded as" disabled, in…”
Wagner v. Texas a & M Univ., 939 F. Supp. 1297 (S.D. Tex. 1996). “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.140 (a). The regulations promulgated under Title II cross-reference Title I of the Act in outlining the standards by which to judge employment discrimination under Title II of the Act: (b)(1) For purposes of this part, the requirements of Title I of the Act, as…”
Dertz v. City of Chicago, 912 F. Supp. 319 (N.D. Ill. 1995). “28 C.F.R. § 35.140 . Defendants interpret this language as imposing the procedural requirements of Title I on all plaintiffs attempting to bring Title II employment claims against a public entity that is subject also to the requirements of Title I.”
William A. Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta, Georgia, 112 F.3d 1522 (11th Cir. 1997). “28 C.F.R. § 35.140 (1996). The relevant Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) guide further states: The Department of Justice regulations implementing Title II provide that EEOC’s Title I regulations will constitute the employment nondiscrimination requirements for…”
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.140(a) — 1 case
Charbonneau v. Gorczyk, 2003 VT 105 (Vt. 2003). “[2] The fact that plaintiff here, like most individuals with disabilities, insists that with reasonable accommodations his condition does not impose any significant restriction on his ability to work does not preclude a finding that he is disabled, or "regarded as" disabled, in…”
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.140(b)(1) — 1 case
Jennifer B. v. Chilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 891 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (M.D. Ala. 2012).
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.