29 U.S.C. § 794a

Remedies and attorney fees

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)(1) The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–16), including the application of sections 706(f) through 706(k) (42 U.S.C. 2000e–5(f) through (k)) (and the application of section 706(e)(3) (42 U.S.C. 2000e–5(e)(3)) to claims of discrimination in compensation), shall be available, with respect to any complaint under section 791 of this title, to any employee or applicant for employment aggrieved by the final disposition of such complaint, or by the failure to take final action on such complaint. In fashioning an equitable or affirmative action remedy under such section, a court may take into account the reasonableness of the cost of any necessary work place accommodation, and the availability of alternatives therefor or other appropriate relief in order to achieve an equitable and appropriate remedy.(2) The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) (and in subsection (e)(3) of section 706 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e–5), applied to claims of discrimination in compensation) shall be available to any person aggrieved by any act or failure to act by any recipient of Federal assistance or Federal provider of such assistance under section 794 of this title.(b) In any action or proceeding to enforce or charge a violation of a provision of this subchapter, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.(Pub. L. 93–112, title V, § 505, as added Pub. L. 95–602, title I, § 120(a), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2982; amended Pub. L. 111–2, § 5(c)(1), Jan. 29, 2009, 123 Stat. 6.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, referred to in subsec. (a)(2), is Pub. L. 88–352, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 241. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is classified generally to subchapter V (§ 2000d et seq.) of chapter 21 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2000a of Title 42 and Tables.

Amendments

2009—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 111–2, § 5(c)(1)(A), inserted “(and the application of section 706(e)(3) (42 U.S.C. 2000e–5(e)(3)) to claims of discrimination in compensation)” after “(42 U.S.C. 2000e–5(f) through (k))”.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 111–2, § 5(c)(1)(B), inserted “(42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) (and in subsection (e)(3) of section 706 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e–5), applied to claims of discrimination in compensation)” after “1964”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2009 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–2 effective as if enacted May 28, 2007, and applicable to certain claims of discrimination in compensation pending on or after that date, see section 6 of Pub. L. 111–2, set out as a note under section 2000e–5 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6,174 cases (4,770 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (1996). · cites it 14× “" 29 U. S. C. § 794a(a)(1). Section 505(a)(1)'s broad language"any complaint under section 501"suggests by comparison with § 505(a)(2) that Congress did not intend to treat all § 504(a) defendants alike with regard to remedies.”

Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2009). · cites it 6× “See 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2). However, monetary damages are recoverable only upon a showing of an intentional violation.”

Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002). · cites it 4× “2983 , 29 U. S. C. § 794a(a)(2). Thus, the remedies for violations of § 202 of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are coextensive with the remedies available in a private cause of action brought under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.”

Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). · cites it 4× “2982 , 29 U. S. C. § 794a. See § 203, as set forth in 42 U.”

Williams v. Brennan, 320 F. Supp. 3d 122 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 6× “Because the Rehabilitation Act provides a remedy only to employees who are "aggrieved by the final disposition of [an administrative] complaint," 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(1), and because the plaintiff in Spinelli "never filed an administrative complaint," the Spinelli court held that…”

Irving Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984). · cites it 6× “See 29 U. S. C. § 794a. The Court of Appeals affirmed.”

Costabile v. NYCHHC, 951 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “§ 794a, the applicable procedures and remedies] section of the Rehabilitation Act[,] as not imposing any exhaustion requirement as to claims against a recipient of federal funding, but as imposing one as to claims against a federal employer.”); Tsombanidis v. W. Haven Fire…”

Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, 596 U.S. 212 (2022). · cites it 2× “29 U. S. C. §794a(a)(2); 42 U. S. C. §18116 (a).”

Edna Doak v. Jeh Johnson, 798 F.3d 1096 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 4× “2014); see also 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(l). For claims against federal agencies, exhaustion requires submitting a claim to the employing agency itself.”

Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004). · cites it 2× “Persons with disabilities are "qualified" if they, "with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, mee[t] the essential…”

United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006). · cites it 2× “§ 12133 (incorporating by reference 29 U.S.C. § 794a). In enacting the ADA, Congress "invoke[d] the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment .”

Est. of Martin v. California Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 560 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “Compare 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b) [Rehabilitation Act] (permitting the prevailing party to recover "a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs" (emphasis added)), and 42 U.”

Show all 6,174 citing cases →

— 29 U.S.C. § 794a(1) — 3 cases

Farrar v. Bridenstine (D.D.C. 2019).

Douglas v. Esper (W.D. Tenn. 2020).

Fortune v. Holder (D.D.C. 2011).

— 29 U.S.C. § 794a(2) — 31 cases

Barker v. Riverside Cnty. Off. of Educ., 584 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2009).

Hernandez v. City of Hartford, 959 F. Supp. 125 (D. Conn. 1997).

Shinabargar v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of the Dist. of Columbia, 164 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2016).

T.L. ex rel. Latisha G. v. Pennsylvania Leadership Charter Sch., 224 F. Supp. 3d 421 (E.D. Pa. 2016).

Shedlock v. Dep't of Corr., 16 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 572 (Mass. 2004).

— 29 U.S.C. § 794a(2)(b) — 2 cases

Brinn v. Tidewater Transp. Dist. Comm'n, 113 F. Supp. 2d 935 (E.D. Va. 2000).

Barnes, Verla v. State of Wisconsin Dep't of Corr. (W.D. Wis. 2021).

— 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a) — 36 cases

Jerrald M. Johnson v. United States Postal Serv., 861 F.2d 1475 (10th Cir. 1989).

S. Baxter Jones v. City of Detroit, Mich., 20 F.4th 1117 (6th Cir. 2021).

Bell v. Gonzales, 398 F. Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C. 2005).

Sai v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 149 F. Supp. 3d 99 (D.D.C. 2015).

McCarrol Page v. Postmaster Gen. & Chief Exec. Oficer of the United States Postal Serv., 493 F. App'x 994 (11th Cir. 2012).

— 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(1) — 215 cases

Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (1996). “" 29 U. S. C. § 794a(a)(1). Section 505(a)(1)'s broad language"any complaint under section 501"suggests by comparison with § 505(a)(2) that Congress did not intend to treat all § 504(a) defendants alike with regard to remedies.”

Williams v. Brennan, 320 F. Supp. 3d 122 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “Because the Rehabilitation Act provides a remedy only to employees who are "aggrieved by the final disposition of [an administrative] complaint," 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(1), and because the plaintiff in Spinelli "never filed an administrative complaint," the Spinelli court held that…”

Brian Lax v. Alejandro Mayorkas, 20 F.4th 1178 (7th Cir. 2021).

Donald Barth v. Bruce S. Gelb, Dir., United States Info. Agency, 2 F.3d 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

Shiver v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2008).

— 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(1)(2) — 2 cases

Jenkins v. Brennan (N.D. Ala. 2019).

Ganzzermiller v. Univ. of Maryland Upper Chesapeake Med. Ctr. (D. Maryland 2019).

— 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2) — 382 cases

Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2009). “See 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2). However, monetary damages are recoverable only upon a showing of an intentional violation.”

Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002). “2983 , 29 U. S. C. § 794a(a)(2). Thus, the remedies for violations of § 202 of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are coextensive with the remedies available in a private cause of action brought under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.”

Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, 596 U.S. 212 (2022). “29 U. S. C. §794a(a)(2); 42 U. S. C. §18116 (a).”

Fowler v. Upmc Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3rd Cir. 2009).

— 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2)(b) — 1 case

Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Wilmington Med. Ctr., Inc., 530 F. Supp. 1018 (D. Del. 1981).

— 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(l) — 197 cases

Edna Doak v. Jeh Johnson, 798 F.3d 1096 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “2014); see also 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(l). For claims against federal agencies, exhaustion requires submitting a claim to the employing agency itself.”

George Dunbar Prewitt, Jr. v. United States Postal Serv., 662 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1981).

Spinelli, Gianpaola v. Goss, Porter, 446 F.3d 159 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Shotz v. City of Plantation, FL, 344 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2003).

Perry v. United States Dep't of State, 669 F. Supp. 2d 60 (D.D.C. 2009).

— 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(l)(1982) — 1 case

Gardner v. Morris, 752 F.2d 1271 (8th Cir. 1985).

— 29 U.S.C. § 794a(aX2) — 1 case

Silverstein v. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health Servs. Corp., 614 P.2d 891 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979).

— 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b) — 209 cases

Est. of Martin v. California Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 560 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). “Compare 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b) [Rehabilitation Act] (permitting the prevailing party to recover "a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs" (emphasis added)), and 42 U.”

Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985).

Turillo v. Tyson, 535 F. Supp. 577 (D.R.I. 1982).

Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2009).

— 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b)(1) — 1 case

Sierra Club v. United States Env't Prot. Agency (D.D.C. 2025).

— 29 U.S.C. § 794a(f)(3) — 1 case

Santos v. McDonough (D.D.C. 2025).

— 29 U.S.C. § 794a(l) — 4 cases

Fortune v. Holder, 767 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D.D.C. 2011).

Stone v. Sec'y United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 705 F. App'x 76 (3rd Cir. 2017).

Plowman v. Cheney, 714 F. Supp. 196 (E.D. Va. 1989).

Bailey v. Tisch, 683 F. Supp. 652 (S.D. Ohio 1988).

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.