U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 126— EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IV— MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

42 U.S.C. § 12212

Alternative means of dispute resolution

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

Where appropriate and to the extent authorized by law, the use of alternative means of dispute resolution, including settlement negotiations, conciliation, facilitation, mediation, factfinding, minitrials, and arbitration, is encouraged to resolve disputes arising under this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (2002). · cites it 6× “See 42 U. S. C. § 12212 (encouraging alternative means of dispute resolution, including settlement negotiations, to avoid litigation under the ADA).”
Campbell v. Gen. Dynamics Gov't Sys. Corp., 407 F.3d 546 (1st Cir. 2005). · cites it 4× “” 42 U.S.C. § 12212 . In fíne, the text of the ADA leaves no doubt that Congress contemplated arbitral resolution of at least some claims brought thereunder.”
Jennifer Kimbrough v. Harden Mfg. Corp., 291 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2002). “3d 141, 143 (1st Cir.1998) (“[F]ar from evidencing an intention to preclude arbitration, [the statute] can only be interpreted as favoring it.”
Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind v. Container Store, Inc., 904 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 2018). “2005) ; see 42 U.S.C. § 12212 . A party may prevail on its demand for arbitration of an ADA claim if it can establish: (1) that the provision for mandatory arbitration is part of a valid contract within the purview of the FAA; and (2) enforcement of the arbitration provision…”
Rivera-Colon v. AT&T Mobility Puerto Rico, Inc, 913 F.3d 200 (1st Cir. 2019). “" See 42 U.S.C. § 12212 . So that was relevant to the arbitrability of the particular claims at issue there, not the arbitrability of all claims under the sun.”
Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 539 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2008). “” 42 U.S.C. § 12212 . SEPTA’s proffered rule also encourages claimants to bring unripe lawsuits that rely on “contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.”
Austin v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc., 78 F.3d 875 (4th Cir. 1996). · cites it 4× “42 U.S.C. § 12212 . The meaning of this language is plain--Congress is in favor of arbitration.”
Wright v. Universal Mar. Serv. Corp., 525 U.S. 70 (1999). “” 42 U. S. C. § 12212 . They rely upon it principally in connection with the question whether, under Gilmer v.”
Susan M. ROSENBERG v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC., 170 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999). “Compare 42 U.S.C. § 12212 (ADA) with 105 Stat. at 1081 (1991 CRA).”
Jason Bercovitch v. Baldwin Sch., Inc., 133 F.3d 141 (1st Cir. 1998). “42 U.S.C. § 12212 . The meaning of this language, far from evidencing an intention to preclude arbitration, can only be interpreted as favoring it.”
Bernard P. Ciaramella v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, 131 F.3d 320 (2d Cir. 1997). “See 42 U.S.C. § 12212 (1994)' (encouraging the use of alternative means of dispute resolution, such as settlement, to resolve claims arising under the ADA).”
Gibson v. Neighborhood Health Clinics, Inc., 121 F.3d 1126 (7th Cir. 1997). “1071 , 1081 (1991) (not codified) (authorizing use of arbitration where appropriate to resolve disputes arising under certain federal statutes, including Title VII); 42 U.S.C. § 12212 (same for ADA); see also Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.”
Show all 60 citing cases →
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.