28 C.F.R. § 41.51

General prohibitions against discrimination

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

(a) No qualified handicapped person, shall, on the basis of handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that receives or benefits from federal financial assistance.

(b)(1) A recipient, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis of handicap:

(i) Deny a qualified handicapped person the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service;

(ii) Afford a qualified handicapped person an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded others;

(iii) Provide a qualified handicapped person with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others;

(iv) Provide different or separate aid, benefits, or services to handicapped persons or to any class of handicapped persons than is provided to others unless such action is necessary to provide qualified handicapped persons with aid, benefits, or services that are as effective as those provided to others;

(v) Aid or perpetuate discrimination against a qualified handicapped person by providing significant assistance to an agency, organization, or person that discriminates on the basis of handicap in providing any aid, benefit, or service to beneficiaries of the recipient's program;

(vi) Deny a qualified handicapped person the opportunity to participate as a member of planning or advisory boards; or

(vii) Otherwise limit a qualified handicapped person in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving the aid, benefit, or service.

(2) A recipient may not deny a qualified handicapped person the opportunity to participate in programs or activities that are not separate or different, despite the existence of permissibly separate or different programs or activities.

(3) A recipient may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration:

(i) That have the effect of subjecting qualified handicapped persons to discrimination on the basis of handicap,

(ii) That have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the recipient's program with respect to handicapped persons, or

(iii) That perpetuate the discrimination of another recipient if both recipients are subject to common administrative control or are agencies of the same state.

(4) A recipient may not, in determining the site or location of a facility, make selections:

(i) That have the effect of excluding handicapped persons from, denying them the benefits of, or otherwise subjecting them to discrimination under any program or activity that receives or benefits from federal financial assistance or

(ii) That have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of the program or activity with respect to handicapped persons.

(c) The exclusion of nonhandicapped persons from the benefits of a program limited by federal statute or executive order to handicapped persons or the exclusion of a specific class of handicapped persons from a program limited by federal statute or executive order to a different class of handicapped persons is not prohibited by this part.

(d) Recipients shall administer programs and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified handicapped persons.

(e) Recipients shall take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with their applicants, employees, and beneficiaries are available to persons with impaired vision and hearing.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 83 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Frederick L. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 157 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Frederick L. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 157 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2001). · cites it 7× “28 C.F.R. § 41.51 (d) (2000). In Markin v.”

Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). · cites it 2× “" 28 CFR § 41.51 (d) (1998). As Congress instructed, the Attorney General issued Title II regulations, see 28 CFR pt.”

Thorpe v. Dist. of Columbia, 894 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2012). · cites it 4× “28 C.F.R. § 41.51 (d). In addition to directing that programs, services and activities be administered in the “most integrated setting appropriate,” the implementing regulations for both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit either “directly or through contractual or other…”

Fisher v. Oklahoma Health Care Auth., 335 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “130 (d)(ADA); 28 C.F.R. § 41.51 (d)(RA). Because plaintiffs have asserted no right under the RA that is not equally protected by the ADA, and because the district court focused its analysis on the ADA claim, we primarily address the plaintiffs' ADA claim.”

Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “” 28 C.F.R. § 41.51 ; see also 43 Fed.Reg. 2132, 2134 (Jan.”

Guggenberger ex rel. Guggenberger v. State, 198 F. Supp. 3d 973 (D. Minnesota 2016). · cites it 2× “shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance _”); 28 C.”

Kenneth R. v. Hassan, 293 F.R.D. 254 (D.N.H. 2013). · cites it 3× “§ 794 (a) and 28 C.F.R. § 41.51 (a); require that services be provided in the most integrated setting, 28 C.”

Derek Waskul v. Washtenaw Cnty. Cmty. Mental Health, 979 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2020). “” 28 C.F.R. § 41.51 (d). Plaintiffs’ ADA and § 504 claims are “essentially one claim,” and we thus consider them in tandem.”

Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985). “4 (b)(4) (AID/IDCA) (1984); 28 CFR §§ 41.51 (b)(3), 42.503(b)(3) (DOJ) (1984); 29 CFR § 32.”

Hollonbeck v. United States Olympic Comm., 513 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “[2] Plaintiffs also refer in their briefs to a "separate benefit" regulation in 28 C.F.R. § 41.51 (b)(1)(iv), and note that it is irrelevant to our analysis.”

Thorpe v. Dist. of Columbia, 303 F.R.D. 120 (D.D.C. 2014). · cites it 2× “130 (d); 28 C.F.R. § 41.51 (d). 5 However, even if these three conditions are satisfied, there is no violation of law if the public entity can show “that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity,” 28 C.”

Disability Advocates, Inc. v. Paterson, 653 F. Supp. 2d 184 (E.D.N.Y 2009). · cites it 3× “130 (d); 28 C.F.R. § 41.51 (d); Olmstead, 527 U.S.”

Show all 83 citing cases →

— 28 C.F.R. § 41.51(d) — 3 cases

O.B. v. Norwood, 170 F. Supp. 3d 1186 (N.D. Ill. 2016).

Doxzon v. Dep't of Human Servs. of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (M.D. Penn. 2020).

L. C. v. Olmstead, 138 F.3d 893 (11th Cir. 1998).

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.