34 C.F.R. § 104.7
Designation of responsible employee and adoption of grievance procedures
(a) Designation of responsible employee. A recipient that employs fifteen or more persons shall designate at least one person to coordinate its efforts to comply with this part.
(b) Adoption of grievance procedures. A recipient that employs fifteen or more persons shall adopt grievance procedures that incorporate appropriate due process standards and that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action prohibited by this part. Such procedures need not be established with respect to complaints from applicants for employment or from applicants for admission to postsecondary educational institutions.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Guckenberger v. Boston Univ., 974 F. Supp. 106 (D. Mass. 1997).
Guckenberger v. Boston Univ., 974 F. Supp. 106 (D. Mass. 1997). “At the summary judgment stage of this litigation, plaintiffs urged this Court to find that such an appellate procedure fails to “incorporate appropriate due process procedures” as mandated by 34 C.F.R. § 104.7 (b). In relevant part, 34 C.”
Carlos Urquilla-Diaz v. Kaplan Univ., 780 F.3d 1039 (11th Cir. 2015). “But even if it were true that the seven defects listed in the OCR’s October 2005 letter to Kaplan constituted violations of the Department of Education’s regulations implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, see 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.7 (b), 108, and that Kaplan admitted to…”
A.W. Ex Rel. C. v. Marlborough Co., 25 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D. Conn. 1998). “relies on 34 C.F.R. § 104.7 which provides that “[a] recipient that employs fifteen or more persons shall adopt grievance procedures that incorporate appropriate due process standards and that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action…”
Power Ex Rel. Power v. Sch. Bd. of the City of Virginia Beach, 276 F. Supp. 2d 515 (E.D. Va. 2003). “1997), where a group of learning disabled students claimed that Boston University (“BU”) violated Section 504 because BU’s appellate procedure did not incorporate adequate due process procedures as mandated by 34 C.F.R. § 104.7 . 10 Although the court found that BU’s appeals…”
Brennan v. Reg'l Sch. Dist. No. 1 Bd. of Educ., 531 F. Supp. 2d 245 (D. Conn. 2008). “§ 794 ; 34 C.F.R. § 104.7 (2002). A violation of these regulations, solely in themselves, does not give rise to a private right of action under the Rehabilitation Act.”
Betts v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 939 F. Supp. 461 (W.D. Va. 1996). “Plaintiff also argues that defendants violated 34 C.F.R. § 104.7 (b), which requires entities covered by the Rehabilitation Act to "adopt grievance procedures that incorporate appropriate due process standards and that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of…”
Betts v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virg., 967 F. Supp. 882 (W.D. Va. 1997). “Plaintiff also argues that defendants violated 34 C.F.R. § 104.7 (b), which requires entities cov *889 ered by the Rehabilitation Act to "adopt grievance procedures that incorporate appropriate due process standards and that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of…”
F. B. v. Archdiocese of St. Louis, Missouri (E.D. Mo. 2023). “Failing to designate at least one person to coordinate its efforts to comply with Section 504 ( 34 C.F.R. § 104.7 (a)); d. Failing to provide continuing notice to its participants that it does not discriminate on the basis of handicap and identifying a responsible employee…”
F.B. v. Our Lady of Lourdes Par. & Sch. (8th Cir. 2025). “Failing to designate at least one person to coordinate its efforts to comply with Section 504[, see 34 C.F.R. § 104.7 (a)]; 2 The newly amended complaint is the second amended complaint.”
Carlos Urquilla-Diaz v. Kaplan Univ. (11th Cir. 2015). “But even if it were true that the seven defects listed in the OCR’s October 2005 letter to Kaplan constituted violations of the Department of Education’s regulations implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, see 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.7 (b), 108, and that Kaplan admitted to…”
Douglas W. Kirk v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist. Nancy Humphrey, Individually & in Her Off. Capacity as President of the Bd. of Trs. of the Plano Indep. Sch. Dist. Anika Vaughan, Individually & in Her Off. Capacity as Teacher for Plano (Tex. App. 2015). “794; 34 CFR 104.7(b) AMERICANS WITH A district that employs 50 or more persons shall adopt and publish DISABILITIES ACT grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action that would be prohibited by the Code of Federal…”
— 34 C.F.R. § 104.7(b) — 2 cases
Power Ex Rel. Power v. Sch. Bd. of the City of Virginia Beach, 276 F. Supp. 2d 515 (E.D. Va. 2003). “1997), where a group of learning disabled students claimed that Boston University (“BU”) violated Section 504 because BU’s appellate procedure did not incorporate adequate due process procedures as mandated by 34 C.F.R. § 104.7 . 10 Although the court found that BU’s appeals…”
Douglas W. Kirk v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist. Nancy Humphrey, Individually & in Her Off. Capacity as President of the Bd. of Trs. of the Plano Indep. Sch. Dist. Anika Vaughan, Individually & in Her Off. Capacity as Teacher for Plano (Tex. App. 2015). “794; 34 CFR 104.7(b) AMERICANS WITH A district that employs 50 or more persons shall adopt and publish DISABILITIES ACT grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action that would be prohibited by the Code of Federal…”
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.