Solomon v. Vilsack, 628 F.3d 555, 564 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 701(b)(2)). The Rehabilitation Act also explicitly promotes policies of self- determination, inclusion, and integration of persons with disabilities, and the provision of equal access to information for such individuals: It is the policy of the United States that all programs, projects, and activities receiving assistance under this chapter…shall be carried out in a manner consistent with the principles of (1) respect for individual dignity, personal responsibility, self-determination, and pursuit of meaningful careers, based on informed choice, of individuals with disabilities; (2) respect for the privacy, rights, and equal access (including the use of accessible formats), of the individuals; (3) inclusion, integration, and full participation of the individuals… 29 U.S.C. § 701(c)(1) – (3) (1998). Within the overall context of this statutory scheme, with its stated goals of promoting the independence, self-determination, and integration of persons with disabilities, the provision of equal access to information to such individuals, and the leadership role of the Federal Government in the promotion of the employment of persons with disabilities, it is plain that Section 501 (with its broad prohibition of employment discrimination by federal employers on 12 Case 1:13-cv-00394-RDM Document 31 Filed 01/06/14 Page 18 of 35 the basis of disability) is supplemented by Section 508 (with its targeted requirement of equal access to federally-procured electronic and information technology for disabled federal employees) in the limited class of situations in which both Sections 501 and 508 are arguably applicable, namely, when a federal employee is denied access to electronic and information technology by his federal employer.

They require County to provide full and equal access to its programs, services and activities. 29 U.S.C. § 701; Civ.C. §§ 54, 54.

Thus, just as with NFB, plaintiff has failed to allege any conduct by NFBC related to or leading up to plaintiff’s injuries. For this reason, plaintiff’s fourth claim for relief for violation of 29 U.S.C. §701, et. seq. fails and must be dismissed with prejudice and judgment must enter in defendant’s favor.

Plaintiff filed this action against defendants alleging disability discrimination and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. He contends that defendants’ actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112-12117; Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.; New York State Human Rights Law (“SHRL”), Exec. 1 All exhibits referenced below are annexed to this declaration. Case 1:15-cv-05082-FB-LB Document 31-1 Filed 01/17/17 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 82 2 Law §§ 290 et seq.; and New York City Human Rights Law (“CHRL”), Admin.

The Cherosky case is particularly instructive. There, the Court ruled that an alleged failure to accommodate a disability under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., is a discrete act which requires timely consultation with an EEO counselor before filing suit in District Court. Cherosky, 330 F.3d at 1247. The Cherosky Court cited National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) for the proposition that the Supreme Court “reject[ed] the application of the continuing violations doctrine to…a ‘serial violation.

One of the Act’s explicit policies is “equal access,” which, according to the statutory language, includes “the use of accessible formats.” 29 U.S.C. § 701(c)(2). Consistent with its comprehensive purpose, the Act prohibits colleges and universities who receive federal funds from denying their benefits, excluding from participation, or otherwise engaging in discrimination on the basis of disability in “all of the operations” of colleges and universities.

29 U.S.C. § 701(a) 14. 29 U.S.C. § 701(a) Findings Congress finds that— (1) millions of Americans have one or more physical or mental disabilities and the number of Americans with such disabilities is increasing; (2) individuals with disabilities constitute one of the most disadvantaged groups in society; (3) disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to— (A) live independently; (B) enjoy self-determination; (C) make choices; (D) contribute to society; (E) pursue meaningful careers; and (F) enjoy full inclusion and integration in the economic, political, social, cultural, and educational mainstream of American society; 15. It is for people who have not yet applied that the information is most useful.

Sch. Bd., 2011 WL 3424564 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2011) (same as to the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701- 97). Case: 1:14-cv-02280 Document #: 29 Filed: 06/03/14 Page 34 of 41 PageID #:403 26 diverse and integrated neighborhoods for the benefit of individuals and the citizenry generally.

1 Case 1:13-cv-08916-WHP Document 6 Filed 12/18/13 Page 6 of 23 Plaintiffs need a mold-free living space to maintain their health and until defendant adjusts its policies and procedures, plaintiffs are denied equal enjoyment and use of their residence. Defendant’s conduct is inconsistent with its obligation to the class pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) (codified as amended in various sections of 42 U.S.C. and 47 U.S.C.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (“FHAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3604. The named plaintiffs and those they seek to represent submit this memorandum in support of their motion to certify the following class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Current and future residents of NYCHA who have asthma that substantially limits a major life activity and who have mold and/or excessive moisture in their NYCHA housing.

Section 504 is -11- Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 12 Filed 03/12/13 Page 18 of 33 intended “to empower individuals with disabilities to maximize employment, economic self- sufficiency, independence, and inclusion and integration into society, through . . . the guarantee of equal opportunity.” 29 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1); see also Am. Council of the Blind v. Paulson, 525 F.3d 1256, 1260 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Regulations implementing Title II of the ADA and Section 504 require public entities to take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants, participants, and members of the public with disabilities are as effective as communication with non-disabled individuals.