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. § 36.211

Maintenance of accessible features

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

(a) A public accommodation shall maintain in operable working condition those features of facilities and equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities by the Act or this part.

(b) This section does not prohibit isolated or temporary interruptions in service or access due to maintenance or repairs.

(c) If the 2010 Standards reduce the technical requirements or the number of required accessible elements below the number required by the 1991 Standards, the technical requirements or the number of accessible elements in a facility subject to this part may be reduced in accordance with the requirements of the 2010 Standards.

[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 68 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Christopher Mielo v. Steak N Shake Operations Inc, 897 F.3d 467 (3rd Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Christopher Mielo v. Steak N Shake Operations Inc, 897 F.3d 467 (3rd Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “One regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 36.211 ("Section 211"), is of central importance to Plaintiffs' theory of harm.”
Zach Hillesheim v. Myron's Cards & Gifts, Inc., 897 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “" 28 C.F.R. § 36.211 (a) . That regulation, however, "does not prohibit isolated or temporary interruptions in service or access due to maintenance or repairs.”
Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 779 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 5× “28 C.F.R. § 36.211 (b). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.”
Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp., 816 F. Supp. 2d 831 (N.D. Cal. 2011). · cites it 3× “28 C.F.R. § 36.211 ; Cal.Code Regs., tit.”
Andres Gomez v. Dade Cnty. Fed. Credit Union, 610 F. App'x 859 (11th Cir. 2015). · cites it 5× “See 28 C.F.R. § 36.211 (b) (2014). Because Gomez suffered only an isolated harm, he lacks standing to secure an injunction, and the case was rightly dismissed.”
Kalani v. Starbucks Corp., 81 F. Supp. 3d 876 (N.D. Cal. 2015). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff also contends that the displays and other movable objects located on the floor and counters do not fall within the *882 exception for “temporary” obstructions under 28 C.F.R. § 36.211 (b). Although an expert may not provide testimony on an ultimate legal issue, she may…”
Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 765 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2014). “See 28 C.F.R. § 36.211 (c). Therefore, Abercrombie need only comply with the simpler method of compliance — that a certain percentage of its public entrances be accessible.”
Gilkerson v. Chasewood Bank, 1 F. Supp. 3d 570 (S.D. Tex. 2014). · cites it 3× “It also argues that regulation 28 C.F.R. § 36.211 not only makes it unlawful for a public accommodation to discriminate on the basis of disability, but also expressly provides, “This section does not prohibit isolated or temporary interruptions in service or access due to…”
Irma Allen v. Ollies Bargain Outlet Inc, 37 F.4th 890 (3rd Cir. 2022). “” 28 C.F.R. § 36.211 (a). Plaintiffs’ “core contention” is that “Ollie’s deliberately directs the placement of merchandise within aisles,” causing a corporate-wide failure to maintain accessible aisles.”
Crandall v. Starbucks Corp., 249 F. Supp. 3d 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2017). “” 28 C.F.R. § 36.211 (b). Thus, “an isolated or temporary hindrance to access does not give rise to a claim under the ADA.”
Rose May Kalani v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 698 F. App'x 883 (9th Cir. 2017). “28 C.F.R. § 36.211 (b) (explaining that the “readily accessible” requirement “does not prohibit isolated or temporary' interruptions in service or access due to maintenance or repairs”).”
Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp., 220 F.R.D. 604 (N.D. Cal. 2004). “” 28 C.F.R. § 36.211 (emphasis added). C. The Unruh Act and CDPA Both the CDPA, which was enacted in 1968, and the Unruh Act, which was amended in 1987 to cover persons with disabilities, prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in the full and equal access to the…”
Show all 68 citing cases →
— 28 C.F.R. § 36.211(a) — 4 cases
Johnson v. Starbucks Corp. (E.D. Cal. 2021).
James Rutherford v. JJS Mkt. & Liquor (C.D. Cal. 2020).
Ricardo Sherfield v. Numero Uno Acquisitions, LLC (C.D. Cal. 2020).
Gabriela Cabrera v. Chaturonk Ngamary (C.D. Cal. 2020).
— 28 C.F.R. § 36.211(c) — 1 case
Medina-Rodriguez v. Canovanas Plaza Rial (D.P.R. 2021).
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.