(a) Academic requirements. A recipient to which this subpart applies shall make such modifications to its academic requirements as are necessary to ensure that such requirements do not discriminate or have the effect of discriminating, on the basis of disability, against a qualified applicant or student with a disability. Academic requirements that the recipient can demonstrate are essential to the instruction being pursued by such student or to any directly related licensing requirement will not be regarded as discriminatory within the meaning of this section. Modifications may include changes in the length of time permitted for the completion of degree requirements, substitution of specific courses required for the completion of degree requirements, and adaptation of the manner in which specific courses are conducted.
(b) Other rules. A recipient to which this subpart applies may not impose upon students with disabilities other rules, such as the prohibition of tape recorders in classrooms or of dog guides in campus buildings, that have the effect of limiting the participation of students with disabilities in the recipient's education program or activity.
(c) Course examinations. In its course examinations or other procedures for evaluating students' academic achievement, a recipient to which this subpart applies shall provide such methods for evaluating the achievement of students who have a disability that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills as will best ensure that the results of the evaluation represents the student's achievement in the course, rather than reflecting the student's impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (except where such skills are the factors that the test purports to measure).
(d) Auxiliary aids. (1) A recipient to which this subpart applies shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure that no student with a disability is denied the benefits of, excluded from participation in, or otherwise subjected to discrimination because of the absence of educational auxiliary aids for students with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills.
(2) Auxiliary aids may include taped texts, interpreters or other effective methods of making orally delivered materials available to students with hearing impairments, readers in libraries for students with visual impairments, classroom equipment adapted for use by students with manual impairments, and other similar services and actions. Recipients need not provide attendants, individually prescribed devices, readers for personal use or study, or other devices or services of a personal nature.
[42 FR 22677, May 4, 1977, as amended at 70 FR 24320, May 9, 2005; 89 FR 40187, May 9, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Palmer Coll. of Chiropractic v. Davenport Civil Rights Comm'n & Aaron Cannon, 850 N.W.2d 326 (Iowa 2014).
· cites it 6× “acquisition or modifications of equipment or devices; appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies; the provision of qualified readers or interpreters; and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities” (emphasis…”
Se. Cmty. Coll. v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (1979).
“” 45 CFR § 84.44 (1978). 10 Section 115 (a) of the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Amendments of 1978 added to the 1973 Act a section authorizing grants to state units for the purpose of providing “such information and technical assistance…”
Walter Camenisch v. The Univ. of Texas, 616 F.2d 127 (5th Cir. 1980).
· cites it 2× “See 45 C.F.R. § 84.44 (d)(2) (1979). 12 . This is consistent with the analysis of this case, undertaken in the excellent article, Note, Defining the Rights of the Handicapped Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Southeastern Community College v.”
Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985).
“23(1984) (requiring that new buildings be readily accessible, building alterations be accessible “to the maximum extent feasible,” and existing facilities eventually be operated so that a program or activity inside is, “when viewed in its entirety,” readily accessible); 45 CFR §…”
Frances B. Davis v. Se. Cmty. Coll., 574 F.2d 1158 (4th Cir. 1978).
· cites it 2× “We believe the district court should give close attention, on remand, to the regulations upon which plaintiff relies, which are cited in footnote 8 of this opinion, and especially to 45 C.F.R. § 84.44 (a), Academic requirements, which requires that: A recipient .”
Long v. Howard Univ., 550 F.3d 21 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “” 45 C.F.R. § 84.44 (a). He therefore says that his claim could not have accrued — as a matter of law — anytime before he submitted a formal application for re-admission in October 1999.”
Jayne G. Nathanson v. The Med. Coll. of Pennsylvania, 926 F.2d 1368 (3rd Cir. 1991).
“(2) Auxiliary aids may include taped texts, interpreters or other effective methods of making orally delivered materials available to students with hearing impairments, readers in libraries for visual impairments, classroom equipment adapted for use by students with manual…”
Jones v. Illinois Dep't of Rehab. Servs., 504 F. Supp. 1244 (N.D. Ill. 1981).
· cites it 3× “12 Plaintiff contends that the failure of IIT and Martin to provide plaintiff with interpreter services violates section 504 of the Act 13 and the regulation promulgated thereunder, 45 C.F.R. § 84.44 (d). 14 IIT and Martin contend *1248 that the primary obligation for provision…”
Garrity v. Gallen, 522 F. Supp. 171 (D.N.H. 1981).
“(1) A recipient to which this subpart applies shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure that no handicapped student is denied the benefits of, excluded from participation in, or otherwise subjected to discrimination under the education program or activity operated by the…”
— 45 C.F.R. § 84.44(d) — 2 cases
Walter Camenisch v. The Univ. of Texas, 616 F.2d 127 (5th Cir. 1980).
“See 45 C.F.R. § 84.44 (d)(2) (1979). 12 . This is consistent with the analysis of this case, undertaken in the excellent article, Note, Defining the Rights of the Handicapped Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Southeastern Community College v.”
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.