45 C.F.R. § 84.1
Purpose and broad coverage
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this part is to implement section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
(b) Broad coverage. The definition of “disability” in this part shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of section 504. The primary object of attention in cases brought under section 504 should be whether entities receiving Federal financial assistance have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not whether the individual meets the definition of “disability.” The question of whether an individual meets the definition of “disability” under this part should not demand extensive analysis.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Crawford v. Univ. of North Carolina, 440 F. Supp. 1047 (M.D.N.C. 1977).
Crawford v. Univ. of North Carolina, 440 F. Supp. 1047 (M.D.N.C. 1977). “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be stayed, and that as a condition of preliminary injunctive relief, the plaintiff is required to immediately initiate a complaint with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare requesting the relief sought in this action, in…”
Cook v. Rhode Island, Dep't of Mental Health, Retardation, & Hospitals, 10 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 1993). “" 45 C.F.R. § 84.1 . Then, too, conditioning fulfillment of the "substantially limits" test on multiple rejections would be tantamount to saying that the law venerates the performance of obviously futile acts-a proposition we consistently have refused to espouse.”
Alfred Brown, William King & Willie James Mallett, Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Robert R. Sibley, Etc., 650 F.2d 760 (5th Cir. 1981). “” 45 C.F.R. § 84.1 (1980). Those regulations define the term “Federal financial assistance” as “any grant, loan, contract (other than a procurement contract .”
Littsey v. Bd. of Governors of Wayne State Univ., 310 N.W.2d 399 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “(See Department of Health and Human Services regulation 45 CFR § 84.1 et seq. [1980], interpreting the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 USC 794).”
Daniel De La Torres v. William F. Bolger, Postmaster Gen., U.S. Postal Serv., Defendants, 781 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1986). “45 C.F.R. § 84.1 . The plaintiff’s prospective employer was an airline company receiving federal assistance rather than a government agency.”
Nelson v. Thornburgh, 567 F. Supp. 369 (E.D. Pa. 1983). “19 Now codified at 45 C.F.R. § 84.1 et seq. (1982), these regulations reflect a conscious effort at balancing the needs of the handicapped with the budgetary realities of programs receiving federal funds.”
Ruth Anne M v. Alvin Indep. Sch. Dist., 532 F. Supp. 460 (S.D. Tex. 1982). “(1980); 45 C.F.R. § 84.1 et seq. (1980). See Foster v.”
Fetto v. Sergi, 181 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D. Conn. 2001). “In contrast, the plaintiff asks the Court to compare his treatment to that of certain other disabled individuals-those who receive services in segregated or residential facilities.”
Bachman v. Am. Soc'y of Clinical Pathologists, 577 F. Supp. 1257 (D.N.J. 1983). “45 C.F.R. § 84.1 . The present tense language of the statute and implementing regulations reflects the fact that the federal funding is conditioned on the recipient’s simultaneous compliance with the anti-discrimination provisions of section 504.”
Davis v. Flexman, 109 F. Supp. 2d 776 (S.D. Ohio 1999). “See 45 C.F.R. § 84.1 . 7 . See 45 C.F.R. § 84.”
Johnson v. Solomon, 484 F. Supp. 278 (D. Maryland 1979). “See 45 C.F.R. §§ 84.1 et seq.; 42 Fed.Reg. 22676 (1977).”
Doe v. New York Univ., 442 F. Supp. 522 (S.D.N.Y. 1978). “2 At the request of this Court, the parties have investigated the present status of the administrative remedies available to the plaintiff and, after inquiry of the Acting Deputy Director of the Regional Office of Civil Rights of HEW, have stipulated that individual complaints…”
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.