This subpart does not require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance with this subpart would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of the public entity or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action required to comply with this subpart would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a public entity shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
55
cases (
15 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case:
Tucker v. Tennessee, 539 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2008).
Tucker v. Tennessee, 539 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 6× “" 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 (emphasis added). So, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must prove that: "(1) she has a disability; (2) she is otherwise qualified; and (3) she is being excluded from participation in, being denied the benefits of,…”
Robertson v. Las Animas Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 500 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 3× “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 . Mr. Robertson contends that the detention facility was required to provide him with auxiliary aids and services necessary to enable him to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the detention facility’s services.”
Shelbi Hindel v. Jon Husted, 875 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 . 3 Affirmative defenses to ADA claims such as this are typically fact-based and not capable of resolution on the basis of the pleadings alone.”
Paulone v. City of Frederick, 787 F. Supp. 2d 360 (D. Maryland 2011).
· cites it 2× “A; see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 (standard of fundamental alteration or undue financial or administrative burden).”
People v. Tapley, 2020 IL App (2d) 190137 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 2× “” See 28 C.F.R. 35.164 (2019). He contends that a witness does not testify in a place where the general public is permitted and that allowing a complaining witness to testify with a dog fundamentally altered the nature of the trial.”
Tugg v. Towey, 864 F. Supp. 1201 (S.D. Fla. 1994).
· cites it 4× “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 . Under those circumstances the public entity has the burden of demonstrating that providing the auxiliary aid of the disabled individual would create such a hardship.”
Prakel v. Indiana, 100 F. Supp. 3d 661 (S.D. Ind. 2015).
· cites it 3× “See 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 (providing that whether compliance under Title II of the ADA would be an undue burden or fundamental alteration is a decision that must be made by the head of the public entity or designee “after considering all resources available for use in funding and…”
K.M. Ex Rel. Bright v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist., 725 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2013).
“” 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 . In particular, as the DOJ explained in its amicus brief to this court, the ADA effective communication obligation “is limited to the provision of services for existing programs; the ADA does not require a school to provide new programs or new curricula”…”
Corona v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 245 S.W.3d 75 (Tex. App. 2008).
“” 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 (2008). Corona has failed to cite any authority, nor are we aware of any, for the proposition that a violation of the ADA voids an otherwise valid judgment.”
Noland v. Wheatley, 835 F. Supp. 476 (N.D. Ind. 1993).
· cites it 2× “A to 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 (1993). The Department of Justice’s analysis of the regulations regarding violations of the ADA provides in relevant part: [The ADA] is enforced by the Federal agencies that provide the Federal financial assistance to the covered programs and activities…”
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.