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 Department of Labor, and City of Los Angeles, Real Party in Interest

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Philip Bentivegna v. United States Department of Labor, and City of Los Angeles, Real Party in Interest (1982) ca9 · 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 Service, Inc. (2006) ca9 · cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. 32.14 (Department of Labor). H.”

Bonnie Mantolete v. William G. Bolger, in His Capacity as Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (1985) ca9 “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 and Tony Sunseri (1996) ca9 “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 (1993) ohnd “29 C.F.R. § 32.14 (b). Accordingly, the City argues, Mr.”

Wallace v. Veterans Administration (1988) ksd “’ ” (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 Employment Opportunity Commission v. United Parcel Services, Inc. (2000) cand “” 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. School Dist. of Omaha (1992) ned “” 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.