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 D—New Construction and Alterations

28 C.F.R. § 36.405

Alterations: Historic preservation

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

(a) Alterations to buildings or facilities that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., or are designated as historic under State or local law, shall comply to the maximum extent feasible with this part.

(b) If it is determined that it is not feasible to provide physical access to an historic property that is a place of public accommodation in a manner that will not threaten or destroy the historic significance of the building or the facility, alternative methods of access shall be provided pursuant to the requirements of subpart C of this part.

[AG Order No. 3181-2010, 75 FR 56256, Sept. 15, 2010]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 2002–2020 · leading case: Molski v. Foley Estates Vineyard and Winery, LLC
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Molski v. Foley Estates Vineyard and Winery, LLC (2008) ca9 · cites it 24× “We affirm the injunction requiring barrier removal within the building and we remand for the district court to apply 28 C.F.R. § 36.405 and the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities, 28 C.”
Daniel Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc. (2020) ca9 “Indeed, 28 C.F.R. § 36.405 requires qualified historic buildings to “comply to the maximum extent feasible with” make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental impairments of the employee or applicant.”
Miraglia v. Bd. of Supervisors of the La. State Museum (2018) ca5 “§ 12204 (c) ; 28 C.F.R. § 36.405 . Indeed, the conflicting experts did not "come together" on the result ultimately implemented until shortly before trial.”
Margo Gathright-Deitrich v. Atlanta Landmarks (2006) ca11 · cites it 2× “” 28 C.F.R. § 36.405 (a). The ADA’s implementing regulations provide specific procedures for determining feasibility, and the regulations state that “[i]f it is determined .”
Speciner v. Nationsbank, N.A. (2002) mdd · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 36.405 (a); see 42 U.S.C. § 12204 (c) (setting forth requirement that regulations pertaining to alterations of qualified historic properties be promulgated).”
Jabari Wright v. RL Liquor (2018) ca8 “2008) (allocating the burden of production to the defendant in cases arising under 28 C.F.R. § 36.405 -alterations to historic buildings); cf.”
Disabilities Rights v. Foley Estates (2008) ca9 · cites it 11× “We affirm the injunction requiring barrier removal within the building and we remand for the district court to apply 28 C.F.R. § 36.405 and the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities, 28 C.”
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.