29 C.F.R. § 1630.12
Retaliation and coercion
(a) Retaliation. It is unlawful to discriminate against any individual because that individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this part or because that individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing to enforce any provision contained in this part.
(b) Coercion, interference or intimidation. It is unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, harass or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or because that individual aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise of, any right granted or protected by this part.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Robert J. Fox v. Gen. Motors Corp., & Robert Trumble, Bankr. Tr., Tr., 247 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2001).
Robert J. Fox v. Gen. Motors Corp., & Robert Trumble, Bankr. Tr., Tr., 247 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2001). “29 C.F.R. § 1630.12 (b) (emphasis added).”
Haysman v. Food Lion, Inc., 893 F. Supp. 1092 (S.D. Ga. 1995). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.12 (emphasis added). The few courts addressing harassment as a basis for an ADA claim have held that the harassment is actionable under the ADA, and have analyzed these complaints according to Title VII hostile work environment standards.”
Williams v. Eastside Lumberyard & Supply Co., 190 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (S.D. Ill. 2001). “§ 12203 (a); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.12 (a). A prima facie case of retaliation under the ADA requires the plaintiff to show that: (1) he was engaged in activity protected by the ADA; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there exists a causal connection between the…”
Hendler v. Intelecom USA, Inc., 963 F. Supp. 200 (E.D.N.Y 1997). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.12 . This Court agrees with the sound reasoning in Haysman and finds that hostile work environment claims are cognizable under the ADA.”
Aki v. Univ. of California Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab'y, 74 F. Supp. 3d 1163 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “Retaliation (Third Cause of Action) The Rehabilitation Act incorporates the ADA’s prohibition against retaliation, which provides that “[n]o person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or…”
MacLean v. State Dept. of Educ., 986 P.2d 903 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “See also EEOC Regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.12 . 6 . Because the record does not reflect a genuine issue of material fact as to whether MacLean suffered any adverse action causally-related to her filing of a charge with EEOC, the state was entitled to summary judgment as to that…”
Johnson v. City of Mason, 101 F. Supp. 2d 566 (S.D. Ohio 2000). “Such a discharge would violate 29 C.F.R. § 1630.12 (a) (West 1999) and the Ohio Rev.”
Donovan v. Powell, 70 F. Supp. 3d 460 (D.D.C. 2014). “7 (“Count II”); (3) NGA failed to reasonably accommodate him in violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1630.12 (“Count III”); and (4) he was subject to retaliation and coercion in violation of 29 C.”
Pearson v. City of Manhattan, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (D. Kan. 1999). “29 C.F.R. § 1630.12 (a). The retaliation provision was clearly enacted to prevent employers from terminating employees who- become advocates for the ADA.”
Jane Doe v. Johns Hopkins Univ. Applied Physics Lab'y (D. Md. 2026). “Finally, in Count IX, Plaintiff alleges that APL retaliated against her or interfered with her rights, in violation of 29 CFR § 1630.12 et seq., by “failing to provide reasonable accommodation related to her bona fide disabilities as it pertained to Defendant’s COVID-19…”
Donovan v. Powell (D.D.C. 2016). “7 (“Count II”); (3) the NGA failed to reasonably accommodate him in violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1630.12 (“Count III”); and (4) he was subject to retaliation and coercion in violation of 29 C.”
Wedderburn v. Bd. of Educ. of Baltimore Cnty. (D. Maryland 2025). “12 In Counts I and III,4 Plaintiff contends that the Board retaliated against her when it, among other things, barred her from the USLB, continually put her in the Options program, deprived her of pay, revoked her benefits, seized her vacation pay, and terminated her.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1630.12(a) — 1 case
Weaver v. Cary Academy (E.D.N.C. 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.