(a) No private or public entity shall discriminate against any individual because that individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this part, or because that individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the Act or this part.
(b) No private or public entity shall coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by the Act or this part.
(c) Illustrations of conduct prohibited by this section include, but are not limited to:
(1) Coercing an individual to deny or limit the benefits, services, or advantages to which he or she is entitled under the Act or this part;
(2) Threatening, intimidating, or interfering with an individual with a disability who is seeking to obtain or use the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a public accommodation;
(3) Intimidating or threatening any person because that person is assisting or encouraging an individual or group entitled to claim the rights granted or protected by the Act or this part to exercise those rights; or
(4) Retaliating against any person because that person has participated in any investigation or action to enforce the Act or this part.
Notes of Decisions
Michigan Flyer LLC v. Wayne Cnty. Airport Auth., 860 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 36.206 (c)(4) lists prohibited conduct, including: “Retaliating against any person because that person has participated in any investigation or action to enforce the Act.”
Strojnik v. Kapalua Land Co., 379 F. Supp. 3d 1078 (D. Haw. 2019).
· cites it 3× “Section 12203(b) provides: "It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other…”
Perdum v. Forest City Ratner Companies, 174 F. Supp. 3d 706 (E.D.N.Y 2016).
“atening, intimidating, or interfering with an individual with a disability who is seeking to obtain or use the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a public accommodation”); Dep’t of Justice, App’x C to Part 36, Guidance on ADA Regulation on…”
Wilson v. Murillo, 163 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “206 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( 28 C.F.R. § 36.206 (2007)) reiterates the conduct prohibited by 42 United States Code section 12203 (b), and then directly applies that prohibition to the precise factual scenario shown by the evidence presented below, “(c) Illustrations…”
Michigan Flyer, LLC v. Wayne Cnty. Airport Auth., 138 F. Supp. 3d 899 (E.D. Mich. 2015).
· cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 36.206 (c). According to the plaintiffs, the use of the word “person” in these passages, rather than the narrower term “individual,” supports their preferred reading of that term as used in section 12203 itself.”
Baker (W.D. Wash. 2025).
· cites it 5× “§ 12182 ; and 15 5) “[r]etaliation or coercion” under 28 C.F.R. § 36.206 . Id. at 6 . 16 II. DISCUSSION 17 A.”
Michigan Flyer v. Wayne Cnty. Airport Auth. (6th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 36.206 (c)(4) lists prohibited conduct, including: “Retaliating against any person because that person has participated in any investigation or action to enforce the Act .”
Wilson v. Clarke (W.D. Va. 2021).
· cites it 2× “152 (b) and 28 C.F.R. § 36.206 . Wilson argues that a disability diagnosis, once made, may not be subsequently removed unless the condition has been cured by a medical doctor.”
Ross Cornell v. Off. of the Dist. Attorney, Cnty. of Riverside (C.D. Cal. 2022).
“4 They asked the Court, inter alia, (1) to enjoin the Riverside District Attorney 5 from prosecuting the criminal case against Cornell and Estrada in Riverside 6 County Superior Court; (2) to order the Riverside District Attorney to retract 7 the Press Release; and (3) to…”
Brooke v. Hatmaker Law Corp. (E.D. Cal. 2023).
“) 8 On August 2, 2020, Strojnik emailed Golden, asserting that the purpose of doing so was “to 9 obtain more information pursuant to Rule 5-100 of the California Rules of Professional Responsibility 10 and pursuant to 28 C.”
Hollywood v. Marr (E.D. Pa. 2024).
“§ 12203 (b) and 28 C.F.R. § 36.206 (a). He alleges that he “engaged in conduct protected by the ADA, including .”
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.