(a) In general. It is unlawful for a covered entity to participate in a contractual or other arrangement or relationship that has the effect of subjecting the covered entity's own qualified applicant or employee with a disability to the discrimination prohibited by this part.
(b) Contractual or other arrangement defined. The phrase contractual or other arrangement or relationship includes, but is not limited to, a relationship with an employment or referral agency; labor union, including collective bargaining agreements; an organization providing fringe benefits to an employee of the covered entity; or an organization providing training and apprenticeship programs.
(c) Application. This section applies to a covered entity, with respect to its own applicants or employees, whether the entity offered the contract or initiated the relationship, or whether the entity accepted the contract or acceded to the relationship. A covered entity is not liable for the actions of the other party or parties to the contract which only affect that other party's employees or applicants.
Notes of Decisions
Eisfelder v. Michigan Dep't of Nat. Resources, 847 F. Supp. 78 (W.D. Mich. 1993).
“52 (d); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.6 . Accordingly, the Court will not use defendants’ collective bargaining agreement, which may itself be discriminatory, as a bar to this action.”
Eckles v. Consol. Rail Corp., 890 F. Supp. 1391 (S.D. Ind. 1995).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.6 (b). This gives no clearer indication, however, that the statute is designed to impair seniority provisions in collective bargaining agreements.”
McGovern v. MVM, INC., 545 F. Supp. 2d 468 (E.D. Pa. 2008).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.6 . McGovern argues that MVM violated the ADA by virtue of the terms of its contract with the USMS.”
Trimble v. BNSF Ry. Co., 636 F. Supp. 2d 916 (D. Neb. 2009).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.6 (c). The NFEPA is not so limited.”
Suchak v. Teksystems (10th Cir. 2026).
· cites it 9× “It acknowledged that under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.6 and 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (b)(2), “an employer ‘may not do through a contractual or other relationship what it is prohibited from doing directly.”
Coffman v. Indianapolis Fire Dep't, 619 F. Supp. 2d 582 (S.D. Ind. 2008).
“Plaintiff bases her claim on 29 C.F.R. § 1630.6 (a), which states, in relevant part: It is unlawful for a covered entity to participate in a contractual or other arrangement or relationship that has the effect of subjecting the covered entity’s own qualified applicant or…”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1630.6(c) — 1 case
Suchak v. Teksystems (10th Cir. 2026).
“It acknowledged that under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.6 and 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (b)(2), “an employer ‘may not do through a contractual or other relationship what it is prohibited from doing directly.”
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.