C.F.R. » Title 29 » PART 32—NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP IN PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE › Subpart B—Employment Practices and Employment Related Training Participation

29 C.F.R. § 32.14

Job qualifications

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

(a) The recipient shall provide for, and shall adhere to, a schedule for the review of the appropriateness of all job qualifications to ensure that to the extent job qualifications tend to exclude handicapped individuals because of their handicap, they are related to the performance of the job and are consistent with business necessity and safe performance.

(b) Whenever a recipient applies job qualifications in the selection of applicants, employees or participants for employment or training or other change in employment status such as promotion, demotion or training, which would tend to exclude handicapped individuals because of their handicap, the qualifications shall be related to the specific job or jobs for which the individual is being considered and shall be consistent with business necessity and safe performance. The recipient shall have the burden to demonstrate that it has complied with the requirements of this paragraph.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1982–2006 · leading case: Philip Bentivegna v. United States Dep't of Labor, 694 F.2d 619 (9th Cir. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Philip Bentivegna v. United States Dep't of Labor, 694 F.2d 619 (9th Cir. 1982). · cites it 4× “29 C.F.R. § 32.14 (1982). It provides that job qualifications “which would tend to exclude handicapped individuals because of their handicap .”
Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 465 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. 32.14 (Department of Labor). H.”
Bonnie Mantolete v. William G. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir. 1985). “While the level of safety risk required was not specified in Bentivegna , the court cautioned against confusing business necessity ( 29 C.F.R. § 32.14 (1982)) with “mere expediency”.”
Cecelia Yin v. State of California Daryll Tsujihara Linda Nicholson Robert Catale & Tony Sunseri, 95 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 1996). “In the course of the opinion, we interpreted 29 C.F.R. § 32.14 (1982), which provides that job qualifications “which would tend to exclude handicapped individuals because of their handicap .”
Bombrys v. City of Toledo, 849 F. Supp. 1210 (N.D. Ohio 1993). “29 C.F.R. § 32.14 (b). Accordingly, the City argues, Mr.”
Wallace v. Vets. Admin., 683 F. Supp. 758 (D. Kan. 1988). “’ ” (Quoting 29 C.F.R. § 32.14 .) Under the facts presented here, the court finds that the requirement that an RN be able to administer narcotics is “job related” only in the sense that it is one of the many “duties” of an RN; less than 2% of an RN’s time is spent on this task.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. United Parcel Servs., Inc., 149 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2000). “” A “blanket” job qualification must be job-related and “must substantially promote” business necessity and safe performance. This decision was based on implementing regulations by the Secretary of Labor that read much like the business-necessity defense at issue here.”
Wood v. Sch. Dist. of Omaha, 784 F. Supp. 1441 (D. Neb. 1992). “” 29 C.F.R. § 32.14 (b) (1990) (emphasis added).”
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.