(a) Rule of interpretation. Except as otherwise provided in this part, this part shall not be construed to apply a lesser standard than the standards applied under title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791) or the regulations issued by Federal agencies pursuant to that title.
(b) Section 504. This part does not affect the obligations of a recipient of Federal financial assistance to comply with the requirements of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and regulations issued by Federal agencies implementing section 504.
(c) Other laws. This part does not invalidate or limit the remedies, rights, and procedures of any other Federal laws, or State or local laws (including State common law) that provide greater or equal protection for the rights of individuals with disabilities or individuals associated with them.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case:
Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998).
Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998).
“28 CFR § 36.103 (a) (1997); id., pt. 36, App.”
Emerson v. Thiel Coll., 296 F.3d 184 (3rd Cir. 2002).
“See 28 C.F.R. § 36.103 (incorporating the standards applied under the Rehabilitation Act into Title III).”
Guckenberger v. Boston Univ., 974 F. Supp. 106 (D. Mass. 1997).
“44 (implementing Section 504); 28 C.F.R. § 36.103 (stating that the ADA “shall not be construed to apply a lesser standard than the standard to be applied” under Section 504).”
Abbott v. Bragdon, 912 F. Supp. 580 (D. Me. 1995).
“28 C.F.R. § 36.103 . Thus, cases construing similar language in the Rehabilitation Act impact interpretation of the ADA.”
Clement v. Satterfield, 927 F. Supp. 2d 297 (W.D. Va. 2013).
“§ 12101 (b)(4); 28 C.F.R. § 36.103 . Under relevant Commerce Clause jurisprudence, it is clear that the Commerce Clause reaches the market’s sale of locally grown produce.”
Bartlett v. New York State Bd. of Law Examiners, 2 F. Supp. 2d 388 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
“” 28 C.F.R. § 36.103 . Notably, the Rehabilitation Act now looks to the standards established by Title I of the ADA and the regulations promulgated thereunder.”
Stevens v. Optimum Health Inst.-san Diego, 810 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (S.D. Cal. 2011).
“§ 12201 (b); see also 28 C.F.R. § 36.103 (c). The Unruh Act and the Disabled Persons Act do not contain an exemption for religious organizations.”
United States v. Happy Time Day Care Ctr., 6 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (W.D. Wis. 1998).
“” 28 C.F.R. § 36.103 . Although persuasive, this evidence falls short of establishing that individuals infected with HIV automatically qualify as disabled under the ADA because it does not identify a major life activity or explain how that activity is substantially limited by…”
Gastelum v. Blue Diamond Hosp. LLC (N.D. Cal. 2023).
· cites it 4× “20 First, Plaintiff’s argument that 28 C.F.R. § 36.103 (c) preempts the Unruh Act is not well- 21 taken.”
Gastelum v. Tilly's, Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2025).
· cites it 2× “In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Unruh 21 Act’s heightened procedural requirements are preempted by 28 C.F.R. § 36.103 (c) and, thus, 22 “void.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 36.103(c) — 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.