C.F.R. Pt. 35, App. A, at 634 activities of public entities are (2012) (“[A]ll governmental covered, even if they are carried out by (internal quotation marks omitted); contractors.”) Appendix B to Part 35—Guidance on ADA Regulation on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services Originally Published July 26, 1991, 28 C.F.R. Pt. 35, App. B, at 661 (2012) governmental activities of public entities are covered, even if (“All they are carried out by 42 U.S.C. § 12206(c)(3), Part II—1.3000 contractors.”); TA Manual, (explaining that private entities may be subject to title II if a with they, “have close relationship,” a public entity). For example, a TA Manual illustration explains that when a private corporation operates group homes for individuals with mental disabilities under contract with a State agency, the State must ensure that its contracts are carried out in accordance with title II. at Illustration Four. Id. Another illustration explains that the State is, to ensure by that a privately “obligated contract,” owned restaurant operating in a State park meets the title II obligations, though the State’s “even restaurant is not directly subject to title at Illustration One. See id. II.” In sum, the Department of Justice interprets the ADA and its Regulations to prohibit title II entities, such as the District of Columbia, from escaping liability for discrimination in services for which it is responsible by contracting away the provision of those services. Case law supports a finding that the District is liable for the discriminatory actions of its contractors. In addition to the clear statements in the Regulations, the Guidance, and the TA Manual, several courts have confirmed that a title II entity is liable for the unlawful actions of private entities with which it has contracted. In state prison inmates with disabilities were denied Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, accommodations under the ADA and sued the State. 622 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2010). The
C.F.R. Pt. 35, App. A, at 634 (2012) (“[A]ll governmental activities of public entities are covered, even if they are carried out by contractors.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Appendix B to Part 35—Guidance on ADA Regulation on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services Originally Published July 26, 1991, 28 C.F.R. Pt. 35, App. B, at 661 (2012) (“All governmental activities of public entities are covered, even if they are carried out by contractors.”); TA Manual, 42 U.S.C. § 12206(c)(3), Part II—1.3000 (explaining that private entities may be subject to title II if they, “have a close relationship,” with a public entity). For example, a TA Manual illustration explains that when a private corporation operates group homes for individuals with mental disabilities under contract with a State agency, the State must ensure that its contracts are carried out in accordance with title II. Id. at Illustration Four. Another illustration explains that the State is, “obligated to ensure by contract,” that a privately owned restaurant operating in a State park meets the State’s title II obligations, “even though the restaurant is not directly subject to title II.” See id. at Illustration One. In sum, the Department of Justice interprets the ADA and its Regulations to prohibit title II entities, such as the District of Columbia, from escaping liability for discrimination in services for which it is responsible by contracting away the provision of those services. Case law supports a finding that the District is liable for the discriminatory actions of its contractors. In addition to the clear statements in the Regulations, the Guidance, and the TA Manual, several courts have confirmed that a title II entity is liable for the unlawful actions of private entities with which it has contracted. In Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, state prison inmates with disabilities were denied accommodations under the ADA and sued the State. 622 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2010). The
hunter-dc-soi.docx