(a) This part applies to the following entities, whether or not they receive Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation:
(1) Any public entity that provides designated public transportation or intercity or commuter rail transportation;
(2) Any private entity that provides specified public transportation; and
(3) Any private entity that is not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people but operates a demand responsive or fixed route system.
(b) For entities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation, compliance with applicable requirements of this part is a condition of compliance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and of receiving financial assistance.
(c) Entities to which this part applies also may be subject to ADA regulations of the Department of Justice (28 CFR parts 35 or 36, as applicable). The provisions of this part shall be interpreted in a manner that will make them consistent with applicable Department of Justice regulations. In any case of apparent inconsistency, the provisions of this part shall prevail.
Notes of Decisions
Melton v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 391 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 37.21 (c) (describing the general applicability of the regulations); see also 28 C.”
Abrahams v. MTA Long Island Bus, 644 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2011).
· cites it 3× “They contend that DOT regulations, specifically 49 C.F.R. § 37.21 (c), support this conclusion.”
Jorisch v. Rhythm Festival, Inc., 544 S.E.2d 459 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
“Because Jorisch failed to present *475 any evidence that Rhythm provided transportation to the public on a regular and continuing basis, Rhythm cannot be considered a “private entity that provide [d] specified public transportation” under 49 CFR § 37.21 (a) (2). It is, however,…”
Pilling v. Bay Area Rapid Transit, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
“” 49 C.F.R. § 37.21 (c). The Ninth Circuit has held that a public transit entity is not required to provide “reasonable modifications” of its paratransit service since such modifications fall within the scope of the Secretary of Transportation’s authority to issue regulations…”
Melton v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 326 F. Supp. 2d 767 (N.D. Tex. 2003).
“49 C.F.R. 37.21(b). Because the relevant statutes of the ADA contain no reasonable modifications provision, this claim fails as a matter of law as it applies to the Rehabilitation Act.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 37.21(b) — 1 case
Melton v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 326 F. Supp. 2d 767 (N.D. Tex. 2003).
“49 C.F.R. 37.21(b). Because the relevant statutes of the ADA contain no reasonable modifications provision, this claim fails as a matter of law as it applies to the Rehabilitation 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.