(a) In general. It is unlawful for a covered entity to use qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities, on the basis of disability, unless the standard, test, or other selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity.
(b) Qualification standards and tests related to uncorrected vision. Notwithstanding § 1630.2(j)(1)(vi) of this part, a covered entity shall not use qualification standards, employment tests, or other selection criteria based on an individual's uncorrected vision unless the standard, test, or other selection criterion, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity. An individual challenging a covered entity's application of a qualification standard, test, or other criterion based on uncorrected vision need not be a person with a disability, but must be adversely affected by the application of the standard, test, or other criterion.
[76 FR 17002, Mar. 25, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Johnson v. Bd. of Trs. of the Boundary Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 101, 666 F.3d 561 (9th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “§ 12112 (b)(6); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.10 . We have previously observed, in the context of a challenge to an employer's " facially discriminatory qualification standard," *567 that "it would make little sense to require an ADA plaintiff to show that he meets a qualification standard…”
Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 455 F. Supp. 2d 157 (E.D.N.Y 2006).
“29 C.F.R. § 1630.10 . The EEOC has explained that this regulation is meant to ensure that there is a fit between job criteria and an applicant’s (or employee’s) actual ability to do the job.”
Cathey v. Wake Forest Univ. Baptist Med. Ctr., 90 F. Supp. 3d 493 (M.D.N.C. 2015).
“But before the court can agree with an employer that a job qualification is not itself discriminatory, see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.10 (a), the employer must show that the qualification rises to the level of an essential function.”
Verzeni v. Postmaster Gen., 109 F. App'x 485 (3rd Cir. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Verzeni specifically brought this claim challenging the general mental fitness requirement of the Postal Service under 29 C.F.R. §1630.10 , which makes it unlawful for an employer to use a qualification standard that screens out individuals with disabilities unless the standard…”
Chicago Reg'l Council of Carpenters v. Thorne Assocs., Inc., 893 F. Supp. 2d 952 (N.D. Ill. 2012).
“§ 12112 (b)(6); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.10 (a). Plaintiffs claim that the FFH test is not limited to essential job functions, and that it is meant to screen out individuals with disabilities rather than to identify job-related skills.”
Lujan v. Pac. Mar. Ass'n, 165 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 1999).
“§ 12112 (b)(6); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.10 (1998). The summary judgment therefore cannot be affirmed on the theory that Lujan’s failure of the strength and agility test, or his conceded inability to perform many longshore tasks, establishes as a matter of law that he is not a qualified…”
Burke v. Com. of Virginia, 938 F. Supp. 320 (E.D. Va. 1996).
“29 C.F.R. § 1630.10 . Burke was subjected to tests that measured whether he is competent to read and comprehend written materials consistent with the published list of abilities required for the position of correctional officer.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1630.10(a) — 1 case
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.