posed Rulemaking, p. 66.[24] §1033.301(a).[25] §1033.301(b).[26] §1033.301(c)[27] Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, p. 72.[28] Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, pp. 68-69.[29] Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, p. 75.[30] §1033.311(b)[31] §1033.131[32] §1033.141(a)[33] Id. at p. 76.[34] §1033.311(b).[35] §1033.311(c)(1)(d)(3).[36] Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, pp 79-80.[37] §1033.311(c)(1).[38] §1033.311(c)(2).[39] §1033.311(d)(1).[40] Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, p. 85.[41] 15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.[42] §1033.311(d)(2). See 16 CFR part 314.[43] Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, p. 92, fns 86-87.[44] §1033.321.[45] Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, p. 92.[46] §1033.331.[47] Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, p. 95.[48] Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, p. 96.[49] §1033.331(e).[50] Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, pp. 100-101.[51] §1033.341(a)-(b).[52] §1033.341(c).[53] §1033.341(d).[54] §1033.351(a)-(d).[55] §1033.401.[56] §1033.411.[57] Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, p. 134, citing 42 U.S.C. 12132, 12182(a); 28 CFR 35.130, 35.160(a), 36.201, 36.303(c).[58] §1033.421[59] §1033.421(c).[60]§1033.421(e).[61] §1033.421(f).[62] §1033.441.[63] §1033.131.[64] §1033.431.[View source.]
Answer: Yes, but please see the comments below.Comment: The USDOE addressed this topic in its March 12, 2020 Q&A:“If an LEA continues to provide educational opportunities to the general student population during a school closure, the school must ensure that students with disabilities also have equal access to the same opportunities, including the provision of FAPE. (34 CFR §§ 104.4, 104.33 (Section 504) and 28 CFR § 35.130 (Title II of the ADA)). SEAs, LEAs, and schools must ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, each student with a disability can be provided the special education and related services identified in the student’s IEP developed under IDEA, or a plan developed under Section 504. (34 CFR §§ 300.101 and 300.201 (IDEA), and 34 CFR § 104.33 (Section 504)).
13253 (Mar. 13, 2015) (to be codified at 49 C.F.R. Parts 27 and 37).\ See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7).Melton v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 391 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 2004) ("Melton").
Judge Spero held that the defendants were required to comply with the DOJ regulation which requires that “reasonable modification in policies, practices, or procedures” be made when necessary to avoid discrimination unless the modification would “fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7). That the 10 minute rule was neutral on its face and had a legitimate purpose was no defense.
The ADA is supposed to be broadly interpreted, but the Second Circuit (Jacobs, Kearse and Hall) cites a Colorado district court case from 1998 for the proposition that "the scope of Title II is not limitless." The relevant ADA regulation here is 28 CFR 35.130(b)(6), which prohibits the TLC from refusing to grant licenses to persons with disabilities who are otherwise qualified to own or operate a taxi. But the regulation cannot be interpreted to require the City to make the taxicabs accessible to the disabled.