The State licensing agency shall ensure that effective programs of vocational and other training services, including personal and vocational adjustment, books, tools, and other training materials, shall be provided to blind individuals as vocational rehabilitation services under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-112), as amended by the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-516). Such programs shall include on-the-job training in all aspects of vending facility operation for blind persons with the capacity to operate a vending facility, and upward mobility training (including further education and additional training or retraining for improved work opportunities) for all blind licensees. The State licensing agency shall further ensure that post-employment services shall be provided to blind vendors as vocational rehabilitation services as necessary to assure that the maximum vocational potential of such vendors is achieved and suitable employment is maintained within the State's vending facility program.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2021 · leading case:
Derwin Patten v. DC, 9 F.4th 921 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
Derwin Patten v. DC, 9 F.4th 921 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, the Randolph-Sheppard program does give blind vendors affirmative rights to “effective” training programs covering “all aspects of vending facility operation for blind persons,” 34 C.F.R. § 395.11 , as well as access to financial information about the state licensing…”
Brooks v. Dist. of Columbia, 375 F. Supp. 3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
· cites it 2× “But, as the District points out, vocational rehabilitation services like the assistive technology Plaintiffs request are specifically addressed in the RSA's implementing regulations, see 34 C.F.R. § 395.11 , and D.C.'s municipal regulations governing the RSVFP, see D.”
Comm. of Blind Vendors v. Dist. of Columbia, 736 F. Supp. 292 (D.D.C. 1990).
· cites it 2× “See 34 C.F.R. § 395.11 . The SLA’s are further required to provide upward mobility training and follow-up services to ensure that each vendor’s “maximum vocational potential is achieved.”
Bolden v. Dist. of Columbia (D.D.C. 2019).
· cites it 2× “But, as the District points out, vocational rehabilitation services like the assistive technology Plaintiffs request are specifically addressed in the RSA’s implementing regulations, see 34 C.F.R. § 395.11 , and D.C.’s municipal regulations governing the RSVFP, see D.”
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.