42 U.S.C. § 6104
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS.
“Nothing in sections 6101 through 6103 shall be construed by the Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency or any court, State, or person to affect any pending litigation or to be a ratification of the ozone or PM2.5 standards.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69
cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985).
Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985). “1555 , 42 U. S. C. § 6104 (e)(1). 47. Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 89 Stat.”
John Doe v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tenn., Inc., 926 F.3d 235 (6th Cir. 2019). “Each antidiscrimination statute has its own highly reticulated set of enforcement rules adapted for the type of discrimination that each law targets.”
Becker v. Washington State Univ., 266 P.3d 893 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “§ 6104 (e)(1) requires any private civil action under the ADA to be brought in a United States District Court for the district in which the recipient is found or transacts business. Prior to filing suit, an individual must exhaust administrative remedies and provide 30 days’…”
Tyrrell v. City of Scranton, 134 F. Supp. 2d 373 (M.D. Penn. 2001). “42 U.S.C. § 6104 (e)-(f) (allowing suits for injunctive relief but requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies).”
D.A. Ex Rel. Latasha A. v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 629 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 2010). “) (“ADA”), the Age Discrimination Act ( 42 U.S.C. § 6104 (f)), the Texas and United States Constitutions, and 42 U.”
Curto v. Smith, 248 F. Supp. 2d 132 (N.D.N.Y. 2003). “However, prior to filing suit under the ADA, a plaintiff must exhaust the administrative remedies set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 6104 and 45 C.F.R. § 90.50 . See Hilow v.”
Yu Kikumura v. Osagie, 461 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2006). “if administrative remedies have not been exhausted,” 42 U.S.C. § 6104 (e)(2), without a total exhaustion rule.”
Rannels v. Hargrove, 731 F. Supp. 1214 (E.D. Pa. 1990). “42 U.S.C. § 6104 (e)(1). Moreover, the general regulations provide for procedural steps to be exhausted before a complainant may bring suit against a recipient of funds.”
Steshenko v. Gayrard, 44 F. Supp. 3d 941 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “” 42 U.S.C. § 6104 (a)(1). In addition to agency oversight and enforcement, the ADA also provides beneficiaries with an administrative remedy and judicial remedy.”
C. Kamps v. Baylor Univ., 592 F. App'x 282 (5th Cir. 2014). “” 42 U.S.C. § 6104 (e)(2). Interpreting comparable language in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Supreme Court has held that administrative exhaustion requires proper exhaustion, utilizing “all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly.”
Long v. Fulton Cnty. Sch. Dist., 807 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (N.D. Ga. 2011). “42 U.S.C. § 6104 (f). The OCR complaint must be filed “within 180 days from the date the complainant first had knowledge of the alleged discrimination.”
Steshenko v. Albee, 42 F. Supp. 3d 1281 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “” 42 U.S.C. § 6104 (a)(1). In addition to agency oversight and enforcement, the ADA also provides beneficiaries with an administrative remedy and judicial remedy.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 6104(e)(2) — 1 case
Parker v. Tulsa Tech. Ctr. (N.D. Okla. 2023).
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.