29 C.F.R. § 1630.4

Discrimination prohibited

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

(a) In general—(1) It is unlawful for a covered entity to discriminate on the basis of disability against a qualified individual in regard to:

(i) Recruitment, advertising, and job application procedures;

(ii) Hiring, upgrading, promotion, award of tenure, demotion, transfer, layoff, termination, right of return from layoff, and rehiring;

(iii) Rates of pay or any other form of compensation and changes in compensation;

(iv) Job assignments, job classifications, organizational structures, position descriptions, lines of progression, and seniority lists;

(v) Leaves of absence, sick leave, or any other leave;

(vi) Fringe benefits available by virtue of employment, whether or not administered by the covered entity;

(vii) Selection and financial support for training, including: apprenticeships, professional meetings, conferences and other related activities, and selection for leaves of absence to pursue training;

(viii) Activities sponsored by a covered entity, including social and recreational programs; and

(ix) Any other term, condition, or privilege of employment.

(2) The term discrimination includes, but is not limited to, the acts described in §§ 1630.4 through 1630.13 of this part.

(b) Claims of no disability. Nothing in this part shall provide the basis for a claim that an individual without a disability was subject to discrimination because of his lack of disability, including a claim that an individual with a disability was granted an accommodation that was denied to an individual without a disability.

[76 FR 17002, Mar. 25, 2011]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 53 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Exby-Stolley v. Board of County Commissioners

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Exby-Stolley v. Board of County Commissioners (2020) ca10 · cites it 5× “” Indeed, the EEOC spoke to that second element in a separate regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.4 (a)(1). See infra Part III.”

Doe v. Dekalb County School District (1998) ca11 · cites it 2× “1997) (considering a reduction in income, but not mentioning the plaintiffs subjective preferences, in ruling that a transfer was adverse).”

George Haas v. Department of Homeland Security (2022) mspb “8, 2018) (providing that an employee alleging disparate treatment disability discrimination must prove, in pertinent part, that she is a qualified individual with a disability); 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.4 (a)(1), 1630.9(a)-(b) (reflecting, with exceptions not applicable here, 17 that…”

Brenda Brown v. City of Tucson, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Arizona (2003) ca9 “§ 12112 (a) and in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.4 (a), which provides that it is unlawful to discriminate against a disabled employee in regard to any ‘term, condition, or privilege of employment.”

Martin v. District of Columbia Government (2015) dcd · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.4 (a)(l)(ii), (iv), (vii), (ix).”

Mary Lou Miranda v. Wisconsin Power & Light Company (1996) ca7 · cites it 2× “See also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.4 (stating that it is unlawful to discriminate against a disabled employee in regard to any “term, condition, or privilege of employment”).”

Peter H. Bombard v. Fort Wayne Newspapers, Incorporated (1996) ca7 “§ 12112 (a); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.4 ; 29 C.F.R. app. § 1630.”

Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (2004) mass “When a qualified handicapped individual’s disability permits him to perform the essential functions of a job without accommodation but prevents him from doing enjoying equal terms, conditions, and benefits of employment, the failure to provide a reasonable accommodation…”

Anthimos Gogos v. AMS-Mechanical System, Incorpo (2013) ca7 “§ 12112 (a); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.4 (a)(l)(ii). We VACATE the dismissal and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Carparts Distribution Center, Inc. v. Automotive Wholesaler's Association of New England, Inc. (1994) ca1 “As the district court noted, this provision “makes it unlawful for a covered entity to discriminate on the basis of disability against a qualified individual with a disability in regard to, among other things, fringe benefits, available by virtue of employment, whether or not…”

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Judith Keane, Intervenor-Appellant v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (2000) ca7 “See also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.4 (f) (stating that it is unlawful to discriminate against a disabled employee in regard to any "term, condition, or privilege of employment.”

Parker v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (1997) ca6 “” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.4 (f)(1996). As noted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the agency charged with administering and enforcing Title I of the *1015 ADA, 11 “[e]mployee benefit plans, including health insurance plans provided by an employer to its…”

Show all 53 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.