(a) Purpose. The purpose of this part is to implement subtitle A of title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12181-12189), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADA Amendments Act) (Pub. L. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (2008)), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by covered public accommodations and requires places of public accommodation and commercial facilities to be designed, constructed, and altered in compliance with the accessibility standards established by this part.
(b) Broad coverage. The primary purpose of the ADA Amendments Act is to make it easier for people with disabilities to obtain protection under the ADA. Consistent with the ADA Amendments Act's purpose of reinstating a broad scope of protection under the ADA, the definition of “disability” in this part shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA. The primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether entities covered under the ADA have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not whether the individual meets the definition of “disability.” The question of whether an individual meets the definition of “disability” under this part should not demand extensive analysis.
[AG Order 3702-2016, 81 FR 53240, Aug. 11, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Paul McGann v. Cinemark USA Inc, 873 F.3d 218 (3rd Cir. 2017).
“See generally 28 C.F.R, § 36.101, et seq. 4 . As discussed in Section I, two tactile interpreters would be necessary for McGann to experience Gone Girl.”
Louisiana Counseling & Fam. Servs., Inc. v. Makrygialos, LLC., 543 F. Supp. 2d 359 (D.N.J. 2008).
“” 28 C.F.R. § 36.101 . The regulations further provide explicit standards and technical specifications for new construction and modifications to existing structures in the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (“ADAAG”).”
Anderson v. Franklin Inst., 185 F. Supp. 3d 628 (E.D. Pa. 2016).
“, and the corresponding federal regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 36.101 et seq., based on Defendant The Franklin Institute’s alleged failure to grant disabled persons full and equal access to its facilities.”
Gilkerson v. Chasewood Bank, 1 F. Supp. 3d 570 (S.D. Tex. 2014).
“, its implementing regulations ( 28 C.F.R. §§ 36.101 et seq.), the Texas Human Resource Code (the “THRC”), Tex.”
Sapp v. MHI P'ship, Ltd., 199 F. Supp. 2d 578 (N.D. Tex. 2002).
“2(1); 28 C.F.R. § 36.101 (explaining that Title III of the ADA “requires places of public accommodation and commercial facilities to be designed, constructed, and altered in compliance with the accessibility standards established by this part”).”
Wilson v. Murillo, 163 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
“” ( 28 C.F.R. § 36.101 (2007).) 2 Civil Code section 55 authorizes any person who is aggrieved or potentially aggrieved by a violation of the right to access to accommodations, facilities, transportation, and housing to bring an action to enjoin the violation.”
Rossman v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 368 F. Supp. 3d 422 (N.D.N.Y. 2019).
“and 28 C.F.R. § 36.101 et seq. , as well as New York Executive Law § 296 and New York Civil Rights Law § 40-c.”
Ramsay v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Examiners (E.D. Pa. 2019).
· cites it 3× “under the ADA should be whether entities covered under the ADA have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not whether the individual meets the definition of disability" in 28 C.F.R. §36.101 (b); (2) the notation that "[t]he question of whether…”
Robert Gardner v. SEPTA (3rd Cir. 2020).
· cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 36.101 (b). The PHRA disability analysis, although otherwise parallel to the ADA analysis, does not demand such broad construction in favor of coverage.”
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.