C.F.R. » Title 28 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › PART 36—NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY BY PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND IN COMMERCIAL FACILITIES › Subpart B—General Requirements

28 C.F.R. § 36.208

Direct threat

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) This part does not require a public accommodation to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of that public accommodation when that individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.

(b) In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, a public accommodation must make an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence, to ascertain: The nature, duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk.

[Order No. 1513-91, 56 FR 35592, July 26, 1991, as amended by AG Order No. 3181-2010, 75 FR 56251, Sept. 15, 2010]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Lockett v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 496 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lockett v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 496 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 20× “We affirm on the narrow ground that CCE, when suddenly faced with a possible threat to the health and safety of its passengers, made a one-time reasonable judgment under 28 C.F.R. § 36.208 while it investigated the competing interests.”
Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998). · cites it 2× “Arline, supra, at 288 ; 28 CFR § 36.208 (c) (1997); id., pt. 36, App.”
George Matheis, Jr. v. CSL Plasma Inc, 936 F.3d 171 (3rd Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “The closest fit is 28 C.F.R. § 36.208 , which permits public accommodations to deny anyone who poses a “direct threat” to others.”
Abbott v. Bragdon, 912 F. Supp. 580 (D. Me. 1995). · cites it 7× “28 C.F.R. § 36.208 (b). In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat, the guidelines contemplate that “a public accommodation must make an individualized assessment, based on reasonable medical judgment that relies on current medical knowledge .”
Rose v. Springfield-Greene Cnty. Health Dep't, 668 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (W.D. Mo. 2009). · cites it 3× “28 C.F.R. § 36.208 (a). Under the regulations, a “direct threat” means “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.”
Sidney Abbott v. Randon Bragdon, D.M.D., 107 F.3d 934 (1st Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 36.208 (c) (1996); see also Arline, 480 U.”
Dudley v. Hannaford Bros., 333 F.3d 299 (1st Cir. 2003). “Consequently, when an individual claims to be disabled and presents some evidence supporting that claim, the proprietor of a place of public accommodation does not satisfy its obligations under Title III of the ADA by refusing to consider that proffer and responding that the…”
Tamara v. El Camino Hosp., 964 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (N.D. Cal. 2013). · cites it 3× “§ 12182 (b)(2)(A)(ii); or (2) based upon an individual assessment, the hospital determines that the service animal poses a substantial and direct threat to health or safety which cannot be mitigated by reasonable accommodations, 28 C.F.R. § 36.208 . Unless either of these…”
Anderson v. Little League Baseball, Inc., 794 F. Supp. 342 (D. Ariz. 1992). · cites it 3× “In determining whether an individual, such as plaintiff, poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, a public accommodation must make an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available…”
George Dadian & Astrid Dadian v. Vill. of Wilmette, 269 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2001). “2173, 2190; 28 C.F.R. § 36.208 . The error was harmless, however, because the jury’s verdict in favor of the Dadians shows that it did not believe that Mrs.”
Doe v. Deer Mountain Day Camp, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 324 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). · cites it 2× “Accord 28 C.F.R. § 36.208 (b). “To constitute a ‘direct threat,’ the probability of significant harm must be substantial, constituting more than a remote or slightly increased risk.”
Blatch Ex Rel. Clay v. Hernandez, 360 F. Supp. 2d 595 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “A (2005); 28 C.F.R. § 36.208 (2005). NYCHA contends, for instance, that the housekeeping problems that underlay the tenancy termination proceedings brought against Plaintiffs Gottlieb and Bryer rendered those individuals direct threats.”
Show all 46 citing cases →
— 28 C.F.R. § 36.208(c) — 2 cases
Theriault v. Dept. of Saf. (1st Cir. 1998).
Theriault v. NH Dept, of Saf. (D.N.H. 1998).
— 28 C.F.R. § 36.208(e) — 1 case
Abbott v. Bragdon, 912 F. Supp. 580 (D. Me. 1995). “28 C.F.R. § 36.208 (b). In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat, the guidelines contemplate that “a public accommodation must make an individualized assessment, based on reasonable medical judgment that relies on current medical knowledge .”
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.