28 C.F.R. § 36.504

Relief

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

(a) Authority of court. In a civil action under § 36.503, the court—

(1) May grant any equitable relief that such court considers to be appropriate, including, to the extent required by the Act or this part—

(i) Granting temporary, preliminary, or permanent relief;

(ii) Providing an auxiliary aid or service, modification of policy, practice, or procedure, or alternative method; and

(iii) Making facilities readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;

(2) May award other relief as the court considers to be appropriate, including monetary damages to persons aggrieved when requested by the Attorney General; and

(3) May, to vindicate the public interest, assess a civil penalty against the entity in an amount

(i) Not exceeding $50,000 for a first violation occurring before September 29, 1999, and not exceeding $55,000 for a first violation occurring on or after September 29, 1999, and before April 28, 2014, and not exceeding $75,000 for a first violation occurring on or after April 28, 2014, except that, for civil penalties assessed after August 1, 2016, for a first violation occurring after November 2, 2015, the civil penalty shall not exceed the applicable amount set forth in 28 CFR 85.5.

(ii) Not exceeding $100,000 for any subsequent violation occurring before September 29, 1999, and not exceeding $110,000 for any subsequent violation occurring on or after September 29, 1999, and before April 28, 2014, and not exceeding $150,000 for any subsequent violation occurring on or after April 28, 2014, except that, for civil penalties assessed after August 1, 2016, for any subsequent violation occurring after November 2, 2015, the civil penalty shall not exceed the applicable amount set forth in 28 CFR 85.5.

(b) Single violation. For purposes of paragraph (a) (3) of this section, in determining whether a first or subsequent violation has occurred, a determination in a single action, by judgment or settlement, that the covered entity has engaged in more than one discriminatory act shall be counted as a single violation.

(c) Punitive damages. For purposes of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the terms “monetary damages” and “such other relief” do not include punitive damages.

(d) Judicial consideration. In a civil action under § 36.503, the court, when considering what amount of civil penalty, if any, is appropriate, shall give consideration to any good faith effort or attempt to comply with this part by the entity. In evaluating good faith, the court shall consider, among other factors it deems relevant, whether the entity could have reasonably anticipated the need for an appropriate type of auxiliary aid needed to accommodate the unique needs of a particular individual with a disability.

[Order No. 1513-91, 56 FR 35592, July 26, 1991, as amended by Order No. 2249-99, 64 FR 47103, Aug. 30, 1999; AG Order No. 3324-2014, 79 FR 17436, Mar. 28, 2014; AG Order 3690-2016, 81 FR 42499, June 30, 2016]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: United States v. Hoyts Cinemas Corp., 380 F.3d 558 (1st Cir. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Hoyts Cinemas Corp., 380 F.3d 558 (1st Cir. 2004). “§ 12188 (b)(2); see also 28 C.F.R. § 36.504 . “Discretion,” of course, implies latitude for the district judge, but subject always to the overriding constraint that the discretion be reasonably exercised.”

Indep. Living Resources v. Oregon Arena Corp., 982 F. Supp. 698 (D. Or. 1997). “§ 12188 (b)(5); 28 CFR § 36.504 (d) (“good faith” is a relevant consideration when imposing civil penalties in an action brought by the Attorney General).”

Sigros v. Walt Disney World, Co., 190 F. Supp. 2d 165 (D. Mass. 2002). “§ 12188 ; 28 C.F.R. 36.504; Guckenberger v. Boston University, 974 F.”

DB v. Bloom, 896 F. Supp. 166 (D.N.J. 1995). “§ 12188 (a); 28 C.F.R. § 36.504 (a)(1); N.J.S.A. 10:5-13.”

Deck v. Am. Hawaii Cruises, Inc., 121 F. Supp. 2d 1292 (D. Haw. 2000). “501 ; 28 C.F.R. § 36.504 . 6 . The Court notes that the first two pages of Plaintiff's Declaration are original copies, whereas the signature page of Plaintiff's Declaration is a faxed version.”

Jairath v. Dyer, 972 F. Supp. 1461 (N.D. Ga. 1997). “§ 12188 (b)(2)(B); 28 C.F.R. § 36.504 (a)(2). 7 . The relevant portion of the ADA provides: No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any…”

Miller v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n (S.D. Ohio 2022). · cites it 4× “03(G); and a relief provision under 28 C.F.R. § 36.504 . On July 26 and August 5, 2021, Defendants Mount Carmel and Cornerstone filed their respective Motions to Dismiss.”

Miller v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n (S.D. Ohio 2022). · cites it 4× “03(G); and a relief provision under 28 C.F.R. § 36.504 . On July 27, 2021, Orthopedic One filed its Answer.”

Colon Rolon, Sonia v. Fazaa Corp. (2025). · cites it 3× “Un interdicto permanente de conformidad con 42 USC §12188 (a) (2) y 28 CFR §36.504 (a) que ordene a la parte demandada eliminar las barreras arquitectónicas que existen en la Propiedad mediante el cumplimiento con las guías de diseño accesible que le sean aplicables según su…”

Figueroa, David v. Santa Real Realty Inc (2024). · cites it 2× “28 CFR § 36.504 (a) (1) (i) (iii). 70 42 USCA § 12188 (a) (2).”

United States v. Asare (S.D.N.Y. 2020). · cites it 2× “C § 12188(b)(2)(A)–(C); 28 C.F.R. § 36.504 (a)(3)(i). The Government seeks compensatory damages for J.”

Bracero Quiñones, Domingo v. Don Bolloepan Bakery Corp (2024). · cites it 2× “III de la Ley para Personas con Discapacidades (la Ley ADA) y la reglamentación de implementación relevante de dicha ley; que se determine que la propiedad no es completamente accesible y utilizable de manera independiente para personas con movilidad limitada como la parte…”

Show all 24 citing cases →

— 28 C.F.R. § 36.504(a)(3) — 1 case

Williams v. Fannie Mae (E.D. Cal. 2022).

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.