29 C.F.R. § 1630.7
Standards, criteria, or methods of administration
It is unlawful for a covered entity to use standards, criteria, or methods of administration, which are not job-related and consistent with business necessity, and:
(a) That have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability; or
(b) That perpetuate the discrimination of others who are subject to common administrative control.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1998–2014 · leading case: Clifford v. Barnhart, 449 F.3d 276 (1st Cir. 2006).
Clifford v. Barnhart, 449 F.3d 276 (1st Cir. 2006). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.7 . That current knowledge and experience were not job-related and consistent with business necessity is evident from the fact that such criteria were not included in SSA’s vacancy announcements.”
Donna Hendricks-Robinson, Penny Moore, Teresa Westlake v. Excel Corp., 154 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 1998). “To the extent “physical fitness” is a separate criterion, therefore, it has the capacity to screen out disabled employees and therefore the possibility of violating the ADA’s requirement of an individualized assessment of an employee’s capabilities.”
Hohider v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 243 F.R.D. 147 (W.D. Pa. 2007). “at 699 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.7 ; Weigel v. Target Stores, 122 F.”
Breen v. Carlsbad Mun. Schs., 2003 NMCA 058 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003). “See § 12112(a) and (b)(3); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.7 (2001). {17} We understand Workers’ argument to be that they are not bringing a claim under the ADA per se, but are seeking to have its provisions enforced so as to preempt Sections 52-1—41 and —42 of New Mexico’s Workers’…”
Donovan v. Powell, 70 F. Supp. 3d 460 (D.D.C. 2014). “4 (“Count I”); (2) he was subject to disparate treatment in violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1630.7 (“Count II”); (3) NGA failed to reasonably accommodate him in violation of 29 C.”
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.