28 C.F.R. § 35.170
Complaints
(a) Who may file. An individual who believes that he or she or a specific class of individuals has been subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability by a public entity may, by himself or herself or by an authorized representative, file a complaint under this part.
(b) Time for filing. A complaint must be filed not later than 180 days from the date of the alleged discrimination, unless the time for filing is extended by the designated agency for good cause shown. A complaint is deemed to be filed under this section on the date it is first filed with any Federal agency.
(c) Where to file. An individual may file a complaint with any agency that he or she believes to be the appropriate agency designated under subpart G of this part, or with any agency that provides funding to the public entity that is the subject of the complaint, or with the Department of Justice for referral as provided in § 35.171(a)(2).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999).
Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). “See 28 CFR §§ 35.170 (c), 35.172(b), 35.190(b) (1998).”
Shotz v. City of Plantation, FL, 344 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2003). “35,696, 35,707 (July 26, 1991) ("Preamble to Regulation on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services,” "Section-by-Section Analysis”) (emphasis added). "An individual who believes that he or she or a specific class of individuals has…”
O'GUINN v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2007). “, 28 C.F.R. 35.170(c). 3 . On appeal, O'Guinn raises two additional arguments, namely that: 1) his misinterpretation of Administrative Regulation 740 amounts to a “special circumstance” excusing exhaustion; and 2) an inherent Eighth Amendment "emergency exception” applies…”
Doe v. Cnty. of Milwaukee, 871 F. Supp. 1072 (E.D. Wis. 1995). “Nevertheless, the County argued that under 28 C.F.R. § 35.170 , Doe should have filed her complaint in federal court within 180 days of termination.”
Roe v. Cnty. Comm'n of Monongalia Cnty., 926 F. Supp. 74 (N.D.W. Va. 1996). “Reading the entirety of 28 C.F.R. § 35.170 and subsequent regulations under Subpart F, however, compels a different conclusion.”
United States v. Sec'y Florida Agency for Health Care Admin., 938 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2019). “28 C.F.R. § 35.170 . Agencies “shall” investigate complaints, may conduct compliance reviews, and, if appropriate, attempt informal resolution.”
Matthews v. Jefferson, 29 F. Supp. 2d 525 (W.D. Ark. 1998). “Appendix A to 28 C.F.R. § 35.170 . 9 . Amazingly, the County also failed to mention in its motion for summary judgment that the chan-eery court judge was himself wheelchair bound.”
Larson v. Snow Coll., 189 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (D. Utah 2000). “Larson is incorrect that 28 C.F.R. 35.170(b) is a statute of limitations for claims brought under the Rehabilitation Act and ADA.”
Winfrey v. City of Chicago, 957 F. Supp. 1014 (N.D. Ill. 1997). “A; see 28 C.F.R. § 35.170 ; Dertz, 912 F.Supp. at 325 .”
Hirsch v. New Jersey State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 607 A.2d 986 (N.J. 1992). “Moreover, we are uncertain that this Court has jurisdiction over ADA-based claims if, as here, the individual *162 plaintiffs have not first filed those claims with the Department of Justice, see 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.170 (c), 35.171(a)(2), 35.”
McCready v. Michigan State Bar, 881 F. Supp. 300 (W.D. Mich. 1995). “Defendant contends plaintiffs exclusive remedy is to file an administrative complaint with the Department of Justice under 28 C.F.R § 35.170. Yet, as plaintiff observes, § 35.”
Ability Ctr. of Greater Toledo v. City of Sandusky, 385 F.3d 901 (6th Cir. 2004). “Aside from seeking relief for disability discrimination by filing a lawsuit, a private party has the option of filing a complaint of disability discrimination with the appropriate federal agency, 28 C.F.R. § 35.170 , which shall then investigate the complaint and attempt to ob- .”
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.170(b) — 2 cases
Larson v. Snow Coll., 189 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (D. Utah 2000). “Larson is incorrect that 28 C.F.R. 35.170(b) is a statute of limitations for claims brought under the Rehabilitation Act and ADA.”
Larson v. Snow Coll., 115 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (D. Utah 2000).
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.170(c) — 2 cases
O'GUINN v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2007). “, 28 C.F.R. 35.170(c). 3 . On appeal, O'Guinn raises two additional arguments, namely that: 1) his misinterpretation of Administrative Regulation 740 amounts to a “special circumstance” excusing exhaustion; and 2) an inherent Eighth Amendment "emergency exception” applies…”
O'Guinn v. McDaniel (9th Cir. 2007).
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.