29 C.F.R. § 1630.8
Relationship or association with an individual with a disability
It is unlawful for a covered entity to exclude or deny equal jobs or benefits to, or otherwise discriminate against, a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a family, business, social or other relationship or association.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 57
cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Thomas Larimer v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., 370 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2004).
Thomas Larimer v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., 370 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2004). “2003), and not elsewhere answered definitively, is whether a possible, or even probable, future disability can ever be a disability that triggers the protections of the Act.”
Erdman v. Nationwide Ins., 582 F.3d 500 (3rd Cir. 2009). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.8 , Appendix (“It should be noted [] that an employer need not provide the applicant or employee without a disability with a reasonable accommodation because that duty only applies to qualified applicants or employees with disabilities.”
Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable High. Express, Inc., 33 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 39 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “, citing cases and 29 C.F.R. § 1630.8 , italics added.) In Larimer, the court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, where the employee was fired shortly after his twin children, who were born with a variety of serious medical conditions because of their prematurity, came…”
Stansberry v. Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp., 651 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 2011). “The individuals covered under this section are any individuals who are discriminated against because of their known association with an individual with a disability.”
Trujillo v. PacifiCorp, 524 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2008). “(citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.8 ). The Trujillos’ relationship to their son is protected by the association provision.”
Sedlacek v. Hillis, 36 P.3d 1014 (Wash. 2001). “§ 12112 (b)(4); [1] see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.8 ; cf. Roe v. Quality Transp.”
Sedlacek v. Hillis, 145 Wash. 2d 379 (Wash. 2001). “§ 12112 (b)(4); 8 see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.8 ; cf. Roe v. Quality Transp.”
Den Hartog v. Wasatch Academy, 129 F.3d 1076 (10th Cir. 1997). “29 C.F.R. § 1630.8 (1996). The association provision has been the subject of very little litigation, and none in this court prior to the present case.”
Magnus v. St. Mark United Methodist Church, 688 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2012). “” See also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.8 . Associational discrimination claims are unlike those otherwise falling under the ADA because employers are not required to provide reasonable accommodations to non-disabled workers.”
Tyson v. Access Servs., 158 F. Supp. 3d 309 (E.D. Pa. 2016). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.8 (indicating a “family, business, social or other relationship or association”).”
Torres-Alman v. Verizon Wireless Puerto Rico, Inc., 522 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D.P.R. 2007). “The EEOC Interpretive Guidance of 29 C.F.R. § 1630.8 describes situations which illustrate the scope and applicability of ADA's "association provision”: To illustrate the scope of this provision, assume that a qualified applicant without a disability applies for a job and…”
Dollinger v. State Ins. Fund, 44 F. Supp. 2d 467 (N.D.N.Y. 1999). “’ ”) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.8 ); Lester v. Compass Bank, 1997 WL 151782 , at * 3 (N.”
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.