(a) A recipient shall make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified handicapped applicant or employee unless the recipient can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its program or activity.
(b) Reasonable accommodation may include:
(1) Making facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons, and
(2) Job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, the provision of readers or interpreters, and other similar actions.
(c) In determining pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section whether an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of a recipient's program or activity, factors to be considered include:
(1) The overall size of the recipient's program or activity with respect to number of employees, number and type of facilities, and size of budget;
(2) The type of the recipient's operation, including the composition and structure of the recipient's workforce; and
(3) The nature and cost of the accommodation needed.
(d) A recipient may not deny any employment opportunity to a qualified handicapped employee or applicant if the basis for the denial is the need to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental limitations of the employee or applicant.
[45 FR 30936, May 9, 2000, as amended at 65 FR 68054, Nov. 13, 2000]
Notes of Decisions
Hernandez v. City of Hartford, 959 F. Supp. 125 (D. Conn. 1997).
“Plaintiff argues that the accommodation she requested was reasonable, and furthermore argues that the alleged accommodations made by defendants were insufficient.”
Toni Works v. Carolyn Colvin, 519 F. App'x 176 (4th Cir. 2013).
“limitations of an otherwise qualified handicapped applicant or employee unless the recipient can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its program[.”
Onishea v. Hopper, 171 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 1999).
· cites it 2× “13 (a) (Department of Labor); 34 C.F.R. § 104.12 (a) (Department of Education); 45 C.”
White v. Stand. Ins., 895 F. Supp. 2d 817 (E.D. Mich. 2012).
“” 34 C.F.R. § 104.12 (b)(2). If the employee establishes that a reasonable accommodation is possible, then the employer bears the burden of proving that the accommodation is unreasonable and imposes an “undue hardship” on the employer.”
Schwarz v. Villages Charter Sch., Inc., 165 F. Supp. 3d 1153 (M.D. Fla. 2016).
“Cfi 34 C.F.R. § 104.12 (c) (listing factors to be considered in determining “whether an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of a recipient’s program or activity” under the DOE’s regulations regarding “Employment Practices” under Subpart B).”
Martinsky v. City of Bridgeport, 814 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D. Conn. 2011).
“After determining that Plaintiffs requested accommodations of a permanent assignment in booking and an assignment *150 to the canine unit were contrary to established BPD policies, the department suggested that Plaintiff be assigned to the training unit.”
— 34 C.F.R. § 104.12(b) — 1 case
Hernandez v. City of Hartford, 959 F. Supp. 125 (D. Conn. 1997).
“Plaintiff argues that the accommodation she requested was reasonable, and furthermore argues that the alleged accommodations made by defendants were insufficient.”
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.