28 C.F.R. § 42.511

Reasonable accommodation

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

(a) A recipient shall make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified handicapped applicant or employee unless the recipient can demonstrate, based on the individual assessment of the applicant or employee, that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its program or activity.

(b) Reasonable accommodation may include making facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons, job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices (e.g., telecommunication or other telephone devices), the provisions of readers or qualified interpreters, and other similar actions.

(c) Whether an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of a recipient's program or activity depends upon a case-by-case analysis weighing factors that include:

(1) The overall size of the recipient's program or activity with respect to number of employees, number and type of facilities, and size of budget;

(2) The type of the recipient's operation, including the composition and structure of the recipient's workforce; and

(3) The nature and cost of the accommodation needed.

A reasonable accommodation may require a recipient to bear more than an insignificant economic cost in making allowance for the handicap of a qualified applicant or employee and to accept minor inconvenience which does not bear on the ability of the handicapped individual to perform the essential duties of the job.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Olmstead v. L.C.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) scotus · cites it 2× “" 28 CFR § 42.511 (c) (1998); see 45 CFR § 84.”

Brown v. Dist. of Columbia (2019) cadc “2176 (plurality opinion) (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 42.511 (c) (1998) ). Just as the reasonableness of a proposed accommodation is "a contextual and fact-specific inquiry," Solomon v.”

Onishea v. Hopper (1999) ca11 · cites it 3× “, 28 C.F.R. § 42.511 (a) (Department of Justice); 29 C.”

Krpan v. Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. (2016) vaed “28 C.F.R. § 42.511 (c) (implementing regulations for Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973); accord 45 *792 C.”

Onishea v. Hopper (1997) ca11 “See 28 C.F.R. § 42.511 (c) (stating that undue hardship inquiry should consider “(1) [t]he overall size of the recipient’s program with respect to number of employees, number and type of facilities, and size of budget; (2) [t]he type of the recipient’s operation, including the…”

Benjamin v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF PENN. (2011) pamd “3d at 495 ; see also 28 C.F.R. § 42.511 (c); 45 C.F.R. § 84.12 (c).”

Simon v. St. Louis County (1981) ca8 “See generally 28 C.F.R. § 42.511 . . See cases cited in Kindem v.”

Frederick L. v. Department of Public Welfare of Pennsylvania (2004) ca3 “” 28 CFR § 42.511 (c) (1998); see 45 CFR § 84.”

Disability Rights New Jersey, Inc. v. Velez (2013) njd “ip,” other § 504 regulations make clear that the "undue hardship” inquiry requires not simply an assessment of the cost of the accommodation in relation to the recipient’s overall budget, but a "case-by-case analysis weighing factors that include: (1) the overall size of the…”

Smith v. Michigan Department of Corrections (2022) mied “§ 794 (d); 28 C.F.R. § 42.511 . Accordingly, Plaintiff’s failure to accommodate claim under the RA should also be analyzed using the direct-evidence test.”

Harmon v. Collier (2025) ca5 “23-40342 § 794(d); see also 28 C.F.R. § 42.511 . When a disability is known and “an employer’s unwillingness to engage in a good faith interactive process leads to a failure to reasonably accommodate an employee, the employer violates the ADA.”

Tomeyka D. Porter v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (2025) alnd “2001); see also 28 C.F.R. § 42.511 . As explained above, the accommodations that Ms.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

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.