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 C—Specific Requirements

28 C.F.R. § 36.311

Mobility devices

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

(a) Use of wheelchairs and manually-powered mobility aids. A public accommodation shall permit individuals with mobility disabilities to use wheelchairs and manually-powered mobility aids, such as walkers, crutches, canes, braces, or other similar devices designed for use by individuals with mobility disabilities in any areas open to pedestrian use.

(b)(1) Use of other power-driven mobility devices. A public accommodation shall make reasonable modifications in its policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of other power-driven mobility devices by individuals with mobility disabilities, unless the public accommodation can demonstrate that the class of other power-driven mobility devices cannot be operated in accordance with legitimate safety requirements that the public accommodation has adopted pursuant to § 36.301(b).

(2) Assessment factors. In determining whether a particular other power-driven mobility device can be allowed in a specific facility as a reasonable modification under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a public accommodation shall consider—

(i) The type, size, weight, dimensions, and speed of the device;

(ii) The facility's volume of pedestrian traffic (which may vary at different times of the day, week, month, or year);

(iii) The facility's design and operational characteristics (e.g., whether its business is conducted indoors, its square footage, the density and placement of stationary devices, and the availability of storage for the device, if requested by the user);

(iv) Whether legitimate safety requirements can be established to permit the safe operation of the other power-driven mobility device in the specific facility; and

(v) Whether the use of the other power-driven mobility device creates a substantial risk of serious harm to the immediate environment or natural or cultural resources, or poses a conflict with Federal land management laws and regulations.

(c)(1) Inquiry about disability. A public accommodation shall not ask an individual using a wheelchair or other power-driven mobility device questions about the nature and extent of the individual's disability.

(2) Inquiry into use of other power-driven mobility device. A public accommodation may ask a person using an other power-driven mobility device to provide a credible assurance that the mobility device is required because of the person's disability. A public accommodation that permits the use of an other power-driven mobility device by an individual with a mobility disability shall accept the presentation of a valid, State-issued disability parking placard or card, or State-issued proof of disability, as a credible assurance that the use of the other power-driven mobility device is for the individual's mobility disability. In lieu of a valid, State-issued disability parking placard or card, or State-issued proof of disability, a public accommodation shall accept as a credible assurance a verbal representation, not contradicted by observable fact, that the other power-driven mobility device is being used for a mobility disability. A “valid” disability placard or card is one that is presented by the individual to whom it was issued and is otherwise in compliance with the State of issuance's requirements for disability placards or cards.

[AG Order No. 3181-2010, 75 FR 56255, Sept. 15, 2010]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2012–2024 · leading case: Jerry Miller v. Walt Disney World Co., 692 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jerry Miller v. Walt Disney World Co., 692 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “Between the district court’s dismissal for lack of prudential standing and this court’s decision, the DOJ issued a new Title III regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 36.311 . This regulation requires a public accommodation, such as Disney Resorts, to “make reasonable modifications in its…”
Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co., 685 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2012). “When faced with an individual who uses a device from the second category, the public accommodation must “make reasonable modifications” to permit the device unless it can demonstrate that the device can’t be operated “in accordance with legitimate safety requirements.”
Kalani v. Starbucks Corp., 117 F. Supp. 3d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “" 28 C.F.R, § 36.311. The Court notes that this additional support was not necessary to the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that the plaintiff could state á claim under § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) in Baughman .”
State v. Greenman, 825 N.W.2d 387 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). “2012) (interpreting the Americans -with Disabilities Act, which guarantees “full and equal enjoyment,” to require accommodation for a park patron who used a “power-driven mobility device[],” including a Segway); see also 28 C.F.R. § 36.311 (2012). Indeed, Segways fit the…”
Jerry Miller v. Walt Disney World Co. (11th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 36.311 (b)(2)(i)–(v) (requiring a public accommodation to consider the attributes of the device, the volume of foot traffic in the facility, the design and operational characteristics of the facility, whether safety restrictions on the use of the device can…”
LaBonte v. Riverside Park Enter., Inc (D. Mass. 2022). “” 28 C.F.R. § 36.311 (a). Plaintiffs allege that by refusing to allow A.”
Berexa v. Target Corp. (E.D. Cal. 2024). “2012), Plaintiff argues that Defendant 3 violated the ADA by allowing the use of motorized accessibility 4 scooters without first considering the safety factors listed in 5 28 C.F.R. Section 36.311(b). See Opp’n at 9-10.”
Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co. (9th Cir. 2012). “624, 646 (1998); 28 C.F.R. § 36.311 . The regula- tions identify two classes of mobility devices: (1) wheelchairs and manually powered mobility aids and (2) other power- driven mobility devices.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 36.311(b) — 1 case
Berexa v. Target Corp. (E.D. Cal. 2024). “2012), Plaintiff argues that Defendant 3 violated the ADA by allowing the use of motorized accessibility 4 scooters without first considering the safety factors listed in 5 28 C.F.R. Section 36.311(b). See Opp’n at 9-10.”
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.