28 C.F.R. § 35.149
Discrimination prohibited
Except as otherwise provided in § 35.150, no qualified individual with a disability shall, because a public entity's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Jill Babcock v. State of Mich., 812 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2016).
Jill Babcock v. State of Mich., 812 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2016). “See 28 C.F.R. § 35.149 (no disabled individual “shall, because a public entity’s facilities are inaccessible .”
United States v. King, 384 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2004). “3d at 1079 -80 (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 35.149 ). Rather, “a public entity must make its services, programs, or activities readily accessible to disabled individuals.”
Clemons v. Dart, 168 F. Supp. 3d 1060 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “If a plaintiff was housed in a facility that satisfies statutory architectural standards, then the defendants have satisfied their obligation to provide reasonable access and cannot be said to have “denied access” to programs or services. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.151 (c)(1).”
Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2011). “[89] The panel majority relied primarily on a DOJ regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 35.149 , which provides: Except as otherwise provided in § 35.”
Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2008). “See 28 C.F.R. § 35.149 . Generally, public entities must “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…”
Frame Ex Rel. Castro v. City of Arlington, 616 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2010). “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.149 prohibits “inaccessible and unusable” “facilities” that exclude 14 In its entirety, the definition reads: "Facility means all or any portion of buildings, structures, sites, complexes, equipment, rolling stock or other conveyances, roads, walks, passageways,…”
Snell v. Neville, 998 F.3d 474 (1st Cir. 2021). “Even examining the evidence in the light most favorable to Snell, the DOC defendants did not "exclude[ Snell] from participation," 28 C.F.R. § 35.149 , in the law library "by reason of his disability," 42 U.”
Doe v. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs., 148 F. Supp. 2d 462 (D.N.J. 2001). “§ 35.105 , appoint an employee responsible for compliance with the ADA and its regulations, see 28 C.”
Theodore D. Karantsalis v. City of Miami Springs, Florida, 17 F.4th 1316 (11th Cir. 2021). “150, no qualified individual with a disability shall, because a public entity’s facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of the services, program, or activities of a public entity.”
Disabled in Action v. Bd. of Elections in the City of New York, et, 752 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2014). “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.149 . 8 Accordingly, public entities “shall operate each service, program, or activity, so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.”
Mote v. City of Chelsea, 252 F. Supp. 3d 642 (E.D. Mich. 2017). “(quoting 28 C.F.R. § 35.149 ). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 states that “[njo otherwise qualified individual with a disability .”
Parker v. Universidad De Puerto Rico, 225 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000). “28 C.F.R. § 35.149 . A public entity must make its service, program, or activity “when viewed in its entirety,” “readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities,” id.”
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.