49 C.F.R. § 37.5

Nondiscrimination

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

(a) No entity shall discriminate against an individual with a disability in connection with the provision of transportation service.

(b) Notwithstanding the provision of any special transportation service to individuals with disabilities, an entity shall not, on the basis of disability, deny to any individual with a disability the opportunity to use the entity's transportation service for the general public, if the individual is capable of using that service.

(c) An entity shall not require an individual with a disability to use designated priority seats, if the individual does not choose to use these seats.

(d) An entity shall not impose special charges, not authorized by this part, on individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, for providing services required by this part or otherwise necessary to accommodate them.

(e) An entity shall not require that an individual with disabilities be accompanied by an attendant.

(f) Private entities that are primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect commerce shall not discriminate against any individual on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of specified transportation services. This obligation includes, with respect to the provision of transportation services, compliance with the requirements of the rules of the Department of Justice concerning eligibility criteria, making reasonable modifications, providing auxiliary aids and services, and removing barriers (28 CFR 36.301-36.306).

(g) An entity shall not refuse to serve an individual with a disability or require anything contrary to this part because its insurance company conditions coverage or rates on the absence of individuals with disabilities or requirements contrary to this part.

(h) It is not discrimination under this part for an entity to refuse to provide service to an individual with disabilities because that individual engages in violent, seriously disruptive, or illegal conduct, or represents a direct threat to the health or safety of others. However, an entity shall not refuse to provide service to an individual with disabilities solely because the individual's disability results in appearance or involuntary behavior that may offend, annoy, or inconvenience employees of the entity or other persons.

(i) Public and private entity distinctions.— (1) Private entity-private transport. Private entities that are primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect commerce shall not discriminate against any individual on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of specified transportation services. This obligation includes, with respect to the provision of transportation services, compliance with the requirements of the rules of the Department of Justice concerning eligibility criteria, making reasonable modifications, providing auxiliary aids and services, and removing barriers (28 CFR 36.301-36.306).

(2) Private entity-public transport. Private entities that provide specified public transportation shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when the modifications are necessary to afford goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations.

(3) Public entity-public transport. Public entities that provide designated public transportation shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability or to provide program accessibility to their services, subject to the limitations of § 37.169(c)(1)-(3). This requirement applies to the means public entities use to meet their obligations under all provisions of this part.

(4) In choosing among alternatives for meeting nondiscrimination and accessibility requirements with respect to new, altered, or existing facilities, or designated or specified transportation services, public and private entities shall give priority to those methods that offer services, programs, and activities to qualified individuals with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of individuals with disabilities.

[56 FR 45621, Sept. 6, 1991, as amended at 80 FR 13260, Mar. 13, 2015]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Brilliant Semenova v. MD Transit Administration

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brilliant Semenova v. MD Transit Administration (2017) ca4 · cites it 2× “Without further provision of public transportation services, see § 12132; 49 C.F.R. § 37.5 . 2 Citations to the “J.”

Woods v. Centro of Oneida, Inc. (2024) ca2 · cites it 8× “Woods further asserts that Centro violated 49 C.F.R. § 37.5 (i)(3) by not providing reasonable accommodations to him.”

Seldon v. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (2012) michctapp · cites it 3× “1; 49 CFR 37.5. Because SMART buses are not equipped with such devices for all passengers, SMART could not have legally required plaintiff to use a shoulder restraint.”

Keirnan v. Utah Transit Authority (2003) ca10 · cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 37.5 (a) states that “[n]o entity shall discriminate against an individual with a disability in connection with the provision of transportation service.”

Abrahams v. MTA Long Island Bus (2011) ca2 “On other occasions the DOT has promulgated regulations requiring private entities to “compl[y] with the requirements of the rules of the Department of Justice concerning eligibility criteria, making reasonable modifications, providing auxiliary aids and services, and removing…”

Boose v. TRI-COUNTY METRO. TRANSP. DIST. OF OREGON (2009) ca9 “See 49 C.F.R. § 37.5 (f). 1 Boose sets forth a tidy syllogism to explain why TriMet must accommodate her by providing her with the vehicle of her choice.”

Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania v. National Passenger Railroad (2005) paed · cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 37.5 (d) (emphasis added). We are not persuaded.”

Resnick v. Magical Cruise Co., Ltd. (2001) flmd “Similarly, the Department of Transportation has not yet promulgated specific requirements for vessels, but it notes that “ferries and other passenger vessels operated by private entities are subject to” the Department's general rule on nondiscrimination in 49 C.F.R. § 37.5 and…”

Kramer v. Port Authority of Allegheny County (2005) pacommwct “49 C.F.R. § 37.5 . Pursuant to these regulations, PAT is required to maintain features that are necessary to make vehicles readily accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities.”

Green v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District (2012) ord “49 C.F.R. § 37.5 (h). It is undisputed that Bus # 2 was not functioning properly and was out of service.”

O'CONNOR v. Metro Ride, Inc. (2000) mnd “” See 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.5 (a), 37.21(a), 37.23(a).”

Reeves v. Queen City Transportation, Inc. (1998) cod “Plaintiffs allege two claims against Queen City: (1) discrimination in violation of United State Department of Transportation regulations, found at 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.5 (a), 37.5(e), 37.169, and 37.”

Show all 24 citing cases →

— 49 C.F.R. § 37.5(d) — 1 case

Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania v. National Passenger Railroad (2005) paed “49 C.F.R. § 37.5 (d) (emphasis added). We are not persuaded.”

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.