C.F.R. » Title 49 » PART 37—TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES (ADA) › Subpart G—Provision of Service

49 C.F.R. § 37.173

Training requirements

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

Each public or private entity which operates a fixed route or demand responsive system shall ensure that personnel are trained to proficiency, as appropriate to their duties, so that they operate vehicles and equipment safely and properly assist and treat individuals with disabilities who use the service in a respectful and courteous way, with appropriate attention to the difference among individuals with disabilities.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1995–2022 · leading case: Eduardo Burkhart v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Eduardo Burkhart v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (1997) cadc · cites it 2× “” 49 C.F.R. § 37.173 . As detailed above, Burkhart alleged that WMATA violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act by failing to ensure that communication with him was “as effective” as communication with others.”
Barry Segal v. Metropolitan Council (2022) ca8 · cites it 2× “167 (c), which requires a stop and announce policy, and 49 C.F.R. § 37.173 , which requires drivers to be trained to proficiency.”
Martin v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (2002) gand “” 49 C.F.R. § 37.173 . “A well-trained workforce is essential in ensuring that the accessibility-related equipment and accommodations required by the ADA actually result in the delivery of good transportation service to individuals with disabilities.”
Kramer v. Port Authority of Allegheny County (2005) pacommwct “167 (e), 49 C.F.R. § 37.173 . “Training to proficiency” includes training in the proper operation and maintenance of accessibility features and equipment, boarding assistance, sensitivity and appropriate interaction with passengers with disabilities and familiarity with the…”
Adiutori v. Sky Harbor International Airport (1995) azd “49 C.F.R. § 37.173 provides in part: Each public or private entity which operates a fixed route or demand responsive system shall ensure that personnel are trained to proficiency, as appropriate to their duties, so that they .”
Lyman v. Greyhound Lines Inc (2021) scd · cites it 5× “For example, Lyman adds an allegation under her negligent training and supervision cause of action that Greyhound failed “to properly train its employees to ensure their proficiency in safe operation of buses and bus equipment, in violation of 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.173 and 37.”
PUKANECZ v. BARTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (2020) paed · cites it 4× “In the case at bar, Pukanecz contends 49 C.F.R. § 37.173 imposed a duty upon Easton Coach to properly train its personnel to ensure that a disabled individual is treated in a “respectful and courteous way.”
Morataya v. Metro RTA (2020) ohnd · cites it 2× “…with disabilities. 49 C.F.R. § 37.173 . Appendix D was created by the United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”) to 10”
Jones v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation (2019) cand “3 First, Jones asserts that SCMTD violated 49 C.F.R. § 37.173 , which states that “[e]ach 4 public or private entity which operates a fixed route or demand responsive system shall ensure that 5 personnel are trained to proficiency, as appropriate to their duties, so that they…”
Gustafson v. Bi-State Development Agency of the Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan District (2019) moed “Bi-State specifically takes issue with the following ten allegations: (1) failure to conduct a self-evaluation or develop a transition plan; (2) failure to train employees to provide services to individuals who are visually impaired in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 37.173 ; (3)…”
Lyman v. Greyhound Lines Inc (2021) scd “In its order granting Lyman leave to amend her complaint, the court specifically “caution[ed] Lyman to pursue her negligence per se theory only with respect to violations of those ‘applicable subparts’ that are designed to protect individuals against physical harm, such as 49…”
Dowlin v. Community Alliance (2009) nhd “…a claim that the drivers were not “trained to proficiency” under the ADA. See 49 C.F.R. § 37.173 . For purposes of this motion, the court need not reach that argument. 2 The defendant cites three California cases in support of its Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss: Hubbard 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.