45 C.F.R. § 84.2

Application

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) This part applies to each recipient of Federal financial assistance from the Department and to the recipient's programs or activities that involve individuals with disabilities in the United States. This part does not apply to the recipient's programs or activities outside the United States that do not involve individuals with disabilities in the United States.

(b) The requirements of this part do not apply to the ultimate beneficiaries of any program or activity operated by a recipient of Federal financial assistance.

(c) Any provision of this part held to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, shall be construed so as to continue to give maximum effect to the provision permitted by law, unless such holding shall be one of utter invalidity or unenforceability, in which event the provision shall be severable from this part and shall not affect the remainder thereof or the application of the provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other dissimilar circumstances.

[89 FR 40180, May 9, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1979–2020 · leading case: Poole v. South Plainfield Bd. of Educ., 490 F. Supp. 948 (D.N.J. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Poole v. South Plainfield Bd. of Educ., 490 F. Supp. 948 (D.N.J. 1980). “According to 45 CFR § 84.2 the regulations are applicable to each “recipient” of Federal Assistance from HEW.”

William E. Jones v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 681 F.2d 1376 (11th Cir. 1982). “45 C.F.R. § 84.2 (f) & (h); § 84.4. In enacting Section 505, the Senate report specifically noted the existence of the HEW regulations.”

Douglas James Scanlon v. Atascadero State Hosp., California Dep't of Mental Health, 677 F.2d 1271 (9th Cir. 1982). “See 45 C.F.R. §§ 84.2 , 84.11 (1980). . Indeed, the Tenth Circuit recently noted: “Every court of appeals and district court, and there have been many, which have considered this question have held that a private right of action exists under the statute.”

Davis v. Flexman, 109 F. Supp. 2d 776 (S.D. Ohio 1999). “In the context of employment discrimination, the regulations require a recipient of federal funds to make “reasonable accommodation” for a handicapped applicant or employee unless doing so “would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its program.”

Dept. of Ed., State of Hawaii v. Katherine D., 531 F. Supp. 517 (D. Haw. 1982). “The Rehabilitation Act and its implementing regulations prohibits discrimination by agencies which receive federal aid against anyone with “a physical or mental impairment” that substantially limits “one or more major life activities” ( 45 C.F.R. § 84.2 (j)). The law…”

EQUAL RIGHTS Ctr. v. Dist. of Columbia, 741 F. Supp. 2d 273 (D.D.C. 2010). “See 45 C.F.R. §§ 84.2 , 84.22(c). The Lottery is subject only to the program access requirement of Title II and not to 45 C.”

Cnty. of San Diego v. Brown, 19 Cal. App. 4th 1054 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). “§ 794a(a)(2); 45 C.F.R. §§ 84.2 , 84.3 (1992).) 57 Neither did Fresno plaintiffs sue for an award to Robert S.”

New York State Ass'n for Retarded Child., Inc. v. Carey, 466 F. Supp. 487 (E.D.N.Y 1979). “See 45 C.F.R. § 84.2 . The former provides, in pertinent part, as follows: No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied *502 the benefits of, or be subjected to…”

New York State Ass'n, Etc. v. Carey, 466 F. Supp. 487 (E.D.N.Y 1979). “See 45 C.F.R. § 84.2 . The former provides, in pertinent part, as follows: No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States .”

The Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind, Inc. v. Lamone (D. Maryland 2020). “” 45 C.F.R. § 84.2 ; see also NFB I, 813 F.”

Equal Rights Ctr. v. Dist. of Columbia (D.D.C. 2010). “See 45 C.F.R. §§ 84.2 , 84.22(c). The Lottery is subject only to the program access requirement of Title II and not to 45 C.”

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.