49 C.F.R. § 27.19

Compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and FTA policy

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

(a) Recipients subject to this part (whether public or private entities as defined in 49 CFR part 37) shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101-12213) including the Department's ADA regulations (49 CFR parts 37 and 38), the regulations of the Department of Justice implementing titles II and III of the ADA (28 CFR parts 35 and 36), and the regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) implementing title I of the ADA (29 CFR part 1630). Compliance with the EEOC title I regulations is required as a condition of compliance with section 504 for DOT recipients even for organizations which, because they have fewer than 25 or 15 employees, would not be subject to the EEOC regulation in its own right. Compliance with all these regulations is a condition of receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation. Any recipient not in compliance with this requirement shall be subject to enforcement action under subpart C of this part.

(b) Consistent with FTA policy, any recipient of Federal financial assistance from the Federal Transit Administration whose solicitation was made before August 26, 1990, and is for one or more inaccessible vehicles, shall provide written notice to the Secretary (e.g., in the case of a solicitation made in the past under which the recipient can order additional new buses after the effective date of this section). The Secretary shall review each case individually, and determine whether the Department will continue to participate in the Federal grant, consistent with the provisions in the grant agreement between the Department and the recipient.

[55 FR 40763, Oct. 4, 1990, as amended at 56 FR 45621, Sept. 6, 1991; 61 FR 32354, June 24, 1996; 79 FR 21405, Apr. 16, 2014]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Boose v. Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Oregon, 587 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Boose v. Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Oregon, 587 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “First, citing 49 C.F.R. §§ 27.19 (a) and 37.21(c), she states that the “DOT regulations adopt and incorporate the DOJ Title II A regulations” except in the rare case that the DOT and DOJ regulations are inconsistent.”

Disability Rights Council v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 239 F.R.D. 9 (D.D.C. 2006). “The parties apparently all agree, and the court has not found reason to dispute, that because (1) WMATA has waived its immunity as to plaintiffs’ Rehabilitation Act claims, and (2) the DOT regulations governing compliance with the Rehabilitation Act require compliance with all…”

Liberty Resources, Inc. v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 155 F. Supp. 2d 242 (E.D. Pa. 2001). · cites it 2× “21 Specifically, Congress mandated that the Secretary “shall establish minimum service criteria for determining the level of services required under this section.”

Cupolo v. Bay Area Rapid Transit, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 1997). “49 C.F.R. § 27.19 (a). The ADA has also been incorporated into the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal.”

Barbara Boose v. Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “First, citing 49 C.F.R. §§ 27.19 (a) and 37.21(c), she states that the “DOT regulations adopt and incorporate the DOJ Title II A regulations” except in the rare case that the DOT and DOJ regulations are inconsistent.”

Paulino-Santos v. Metro. Transit Auth. (S.D.N.Y. 2024). “”); 49 C.F.R. § 27.19 (the Rehabilitation Act also incorporates “all applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act .”

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.