(a) The designated agency shall investigate complaints for which it is responsible under § 35.171.
(b) The designated agency may conduct compliance reviews of public entities in order to ascertain whether there has been a failure to comply with the nondiscrimination requirements of this part.
(c) Where appropriate, the designated agency shall attempt informal resolution of any matter being investigated under this section, and, if resolution is not achieved and a violation is found, issue to the public entity and the complainant, if any, a Letter of Findings that shall include—
(1) Findings of fact and conclusions of law;
(2) A description of a remedy for each violation found (including compensatory damages where appropriate); and
(3) Notice of the rights and procedures available under paragraph (d) of this section and §§ 35.173 and 35.174.
(d) At any time, the complainant may file a private suit pursuant to section 203 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 12133, whether or not the designated agency finds a violation.
[AG Order No. 3180-2010, 75 FR 56184, Sept. 15, 2010]
Notes of Decisions
Shotz v. City of Plantation, FL, 344 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2003).
“"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,” 28 C.”
Noland v. Wheatley, 835 F. Supp. 476 (N.D. Ind. 1993).
· cites it 4× “A to 28 C.F.R. § 35.172 (1993). See also Petersen v.”
Carrasquillo v. City of New York, 324 F. Supp. 2d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Jan 16, 2004) (citing 28 C.F.R. § 35.172 (b) and declining to dismiss prisoner’s ADA claim for failure to exhaust DOJ administrative remedies).”
Lucas v. Henrico Cnty. Sch. Bd., 822 F. Supp. 2d 589 (E.D. Va. 2011).
· cites it 2× “” 28 C.F.R. § 35.172 (d). The preamble to the regulations explains that “[b]ecause the Act does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies, the complainant may elect to proceed with a private suit at any time.”
Hope v. Cortines, 872 F. Supp. 14 (E.D.N.Y 1995).
· cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 35.172 ; see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.”
Wagner v. Texas a & M Univ., 939 F. Supp. 1297 (S.D. Tex. 1996).
· cites it 2× “In addition, in the Appendix to Subpart F, in an analysis of 28 C.F.R. § 35.172 governing resolution of complaints, the regulations restate the rule of no exhaustion.”
West v. Spellings, 480 F. Supp. 2d 213 (D.D.C. 2007).
· cites it 2× “West, 28 C.F.R. § 35.172 and 34 C.F.R. § 105.41 , are not applicable here.”
Veloz v. New York, 339 F. Supp. 2d 505 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
“28, 2000) (citing 28 C.F.R. § 35.172 , App. A) (“Because the [ADA] does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies, the complainant may elect to proceed with a private suit at any time.”
Dominguez v. City of Council Bluffs, Iowa, 974 F. Supp. 732 (S.D. Iowa 1997).
· cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 35.172 , App. A. 9 Based on the language of Title II, the regulations promulgated by the Department *738 of Justice, and the majority view of the federal district courts, there appears to be no requirement that Plaintiff file an administrative complaint within 300…”
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.172(b) — 2 cases
Dominguez v. City of Council Bluffs, Iowa, 974 F. Supp. 732 (S.D. Iowa 1997).
“28 C.F.R. § 35.172 , App. A. 9 Based on the language of Title II, the regulations promulgated by the Department *738 of Justice, and the majority view of the federal district courts, there appears to be no requirement that Plaintiff file an administrative complaint within 300…”
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.172(d) — 1 case
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.