U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Special Attention of: Notice FHEO 96-1
All Directors, Fair Housing Issued: May 24, 1996
Enforcement Centers Expires: May 23, 1997
All Directors, Program Operations
and Compliance Centers Cross References:
Subject: Multi-jurisdictional Complaints
I. Overview
The purpose of this Notice is to describe the policies and
procedures for accepting and processing multi-jurisdictional
complaints. These are complaints that are investigated under more
than one statutory authority. 1 Please implement this guidance
immediately. More detailed guidance, including specific procedural
instructions and data entry directions, will be issued in the
future.
The following general principles, which are described in
greater detail below, should apply to your concurrent processing
activity.
1. Except under unusual circumstances, file complaints under
all of the Department's relevant statutory authorities.
2. In most instances, treat multi-jurisdictional complaints
as one investigation, prepare one final investigative
report and document them in one file.
1 The statutory authorities included in the scope of this
memorandum are: the Fair Housing Act; Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964; Section 109 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990; and Executive Order 11063.
EECC: Distribution: W-3-1, R-3-1 (FHEO), W-2(FHEO)
2
3. Where possible, a single document should contain the
terms of the settlement or conciliation of the multi-
jurisdictional complaint. As with single complaints,
such resolutions may occur before the completion of the
investigation and the issuance of findings.
4. When possible, execute settlements of currently processed
complaints in one agreement, address all of the practices
of the respondent that were found to have caused the
violation and cite all applicable regulations, statutes,
Executive Orders, etc.
5. Whenever possible, communicate the Department's findings
from the consolidated investigation to the parties at the
same time, in one document.
6. Potential violations of one or more statutes unrelated to
the complainant's allegations that are uncovered during
the investigation shall be referred for appropriate
Department-initiated action rather than addressed in the
context of the complaint.
This notice consists of two parts. The first describes
various substantive and procedural facts that affect consolidated
investigations of multi-jurisdictional complaints. The second part
addresses specific case processing issues, such as when a complaint
may be "filed" and how much time may be allocated to investigations
when the regulations provide different answers to these questions.
II. Multi-jurisdictional Processing: Substantive Issues
Fair Housing Act and Other Statutes
The Department has an obligation to enforce all of the
statutes for which it is responsible. Moreover, it strengthens the
Department's enforcement efforts to conduct investigations using
all relevant civil rights statutes. A common instance of a
concurrent complaint is one filed under the Fair Housing Act and
Title VI. The benefits of investigating a complaint under the Fair
Housing Act are apparent. Usually the complainant's monetary
remedy is greater than it might be under Title VI. Second, because
the Fair Housing Act covers both Federally funded and private
housing it gives the Department clear authority to conduct
investigations and to seek remedies for proven violations without
the necessity of establishing Federal financial assistance.
Unlike the Fair Housing Act, both Title VI and Section 504
provide for the termination of funds, disapproving funding
requests, conditioning funds,
3
debarment, and other sanctions. The immediate impact of this remedy
often persuades a recipient respondent to ameliorate findings of
housing discrimination.
Consequently, when a potential complaint of housing
discrimination is filed, determine whether the respondent is a
recipient of Federal funds. In some cases this can be determined
easily, as when the respondent is a housing authority. Sometimes,
the complainant will know whether the respondent receives HUD
funds. In some cases, however, the intake analyst should inquire
of a program office or conduct other research to determine whether
the respondent receives Federal financial assistance.
A. Concurrent Processing
If the respondent in a Fair Housing Act complaint
receives Federal funds, and the complaint meets the other
jurisdictional requirements, 2 it should be concurrently
processed under all relevant statutes 3 except under the
following circumstances:
1. The complainant insists on anonymity.
Title VI and Section 504 regulations require that
the identity of the complainant be kept
confidential absent written authorization from the
complainant to the contrary.
2 Timeliness of a complaint is one "jurisdictional" element to
review. However, the Department may extend the 180 day filing
period for "good cause" under Title VI, Section 109, the Age
Discrimination Act, the ADA, and Section 504. Field Offices should
grant "good cause" extensions when evidence suggests that the
complainant was misinformed by a government official about the
complainant's rights, when it isn't clear until the investigative
stage that the respondent is a Federal recipient, or when it
otherwise would be in the best interest of the government to
process the complaint, especially where the same complaint is
timely under Title VIII. The filing period under Title VIII is one
year.
3 Where a complainant is alleging discrimination on more than one
protected basis, the complaint may be concurrently processed under
more than two statutes. For example, a housing discrimination
complaint filed against a Federal recipient that alleges
discrimination on the bases of national origin, age, and
disability, should be processed under the Fair Housing Act, the Age
Discrimination Act, Section 504, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Please note of the different procedures for
mediating Age discrimination Act claims. (see i.e., supra)
4
Therefore, in order to process a concurrent
complaint, the intake specialist should obtain and
include in the investigative file a written waiver
of confidentiality. If the Title VI, Section 109,
and/or Section 504 complaint is submitted on the
HUD-903 form, it is not necessary to obtain a
waiver of confidentiality.
If there is a need to obtain a waiver, the intake
specialist should explain to the complainant that
it is more difficult to investigate complaints and
to obtain relief on behalf of the complainant, if
the Department cannot disclose the complainant's
identity. The intake specialist also should
explain that the complainant's individual remedy
may be greater if the complaint is processed under
the nonconfidential provisions of the Fair Housing
Act. If the complainant refuses to provide a
waiver, contact the Office of Investigations at
Headquarters for instructions on filing a possible
Jane Doe or John Doe complaint.
2. The complainant refuses to file a complaint under
more than one statute.
In some rare instances, a complainant, after
counselling, may refuse to file a complaint under a
statute that the complainant did not initially
contemplate. Of course, in such instances, the
wishes of the complainant must be honored. It
would be advisable to obtain a statement from the
complainant stating that he or she understands the
implications of his or her decision, and that he or
she voluntarily refuses to file under other
statutes.
B. Exceptions to A Single, Combined Investigation
In most instances, cases that are concurrently processed
should be consolidated in one investigation for reasons of
consistency and efficiency. The exceptions to this general
rule include the following:
1. When a Fair Housing Act complaint is referred to a
substantially equivalent agency.
In these cases, complaints should be taken under
all relevant statutes. When the Fair Housing Act
complaint is to be handled by the substantially
equivalent agency, the complaint may be separated
with the Title VIII portion being dually-filed with
the agency, and the allegations under all other
5
civil rights authorities will be handled by HUD.
This is appropriate in single-issue or straight
forward cases without systemic implications. In
the discretion of the FHEC Director (with
consultation with the POCC Director, if
appropriate), cases with broad implications under
civil rights authorities may be retained to permit
the entire case to be handled by the Department.
The Enforcement Center should establish procedures
to coordinate the investigation of the complaints
and to ensure that the investigations do not result
in inconsistent findings. There will be one case
file for the substantially equivalent agency with a
Title VIII case number, and one case file for the
HUD office with the remaining case numbers. Before
the substantially equivalent agency issues a
determination, both HUD and the agency must
coordinate the findings and the dates of the
issuance of the findings/determination.
In making the initial determination whether to
retain or refer mixed Title VIII cases, those cases
in which other civil rights statutes offer stronger
protection should be kept by HUD.
For example: A complainant files a complaint
against a housing authority alleging that the
housing authority failed to allow the resident to
install a ramp. Under Section 504, the housing
authority must install the ramp at their own
expense, as long as it is not an undue financial
and administrative burden, whereas, a Title VIII
remedy would result in the tenant paying for
installation of the ramp.
Of course, allegations under civil rights
authorities that are not covered by Title VIII are
only investigated by HUD.
For example: an activity under the CDBG program
involving an employee of a city planning department
alleging failure to promote based on racial
discrimination and failure to accommodate for a
disability.
At any point in this process, the Director of the
Fair Housing Enforcement Center may determine
whether a request for reactivation will be made by
mutual consent with respect to the Fair Housing Act
complaint.
6
2. The complainant alleges systemic regulatory
violations.
A complainant may specifically allege that the
respondent's actions are part of a broader systemic
violation of one or more statutes, and include
claims which appear to be regulatory violations.
In those cases, complaints should be taken under
all appropriate statutes. The Fair Housing Act
complaint may be identified for systemic processing
using a mutual reactivation procedure, even if the
investigation is in progress by the substantially
equivalent agency.
For example: HUD receives two complaints from
residents at a public housing authority alleging
disparity in maintenance. The complaints are
forwarded to the substantially equivalent agency
for investigation. The next week HUD receives 25
additional complaints alleging the same disparity
in maintenance. Even though the substantially
equivalent agency has initiated an investigation of
the two complaints, these may be reactivated by
mutual consent for a systemic investigation by HUD.
HUD may want to open a compliance review. After
consultation between the Director of the
Enforcement Center and the Director of the Program
Operations and Compliance Center (PoCC) , a
decision should be made by the Director of the POCC
as to whether a compliance review is warranted and
feasible. This decision will be based on a number
of factors, including:
-- The identity of the recipient(s). This
includes consideration of the recipient's
location and the size of its program (how
many beneficiaries are potentially
affected by the practice at issue),
whether it has recently been the subject
of other compliance/enforcement activity.
-- The practice or policy at issue. Does it
affect (or have the potential to affect)
a significant number of beneficiaries or
program applicants?
-- The availability of resources to conduct
the review.
7
3. The Fair Housing Act complaint will be referred to
the Department of Justice for prompt judicial
action.
A complaint that is identified as requiring prompt
judicial action may be processed separately. The
decision to separate the processing should be made
only after the Department of Justice (DOJ) has
agreed to prosecute the Fair Housing Act complaint.
The investigation of the non-Fair Housing Act
complaints can proceed; however, they should be
coordinated closely with the Assistant General
Counsel in the Area Office and with the DOJ
representative.
C. Section 504 and Americans with Disabilities Act
complaints
1. General
The DOJ requires that HUD investigate disability
discrimination complaints under both Section 504
and the ADA whenever possible. This applies to the
vast majority of the Section 504 and ADA
complaints. One result of this requirement is that
a concurrent Section 504 and Title VIII complaint,
in most instances, will be processed under the ADA.
Because the complaint procedures under the ADA and
Section 504, by design, are very similar,
concurrent case processing will pose few procedural
problems. The differences in processing are
discussed below.
2. Employment
Employment discrimination complaints for which the
Department has jurisdiction or responsibility under
both Section 504 and the ADA present special
concurrent processing problems. Section 504
coverage of employment complaints extends only to
recipients of HUD funds. Title II of the ADA
covers all state or local governmental units,
whether or not the unit receives Federal funds.
Title I of the ADA covers private and public
entities, if the entity had 25 employees from July
26, 1992 to July 26, 1994, or 15 employees from
that date forward. The procedures for processing
employment discrimination complaints filed on the
basis of disability are included in a separate
memorandum, entitled: "Procedural Guidance on
Implementation of Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990."
8
Note that some employment cases also may involve
violations of the Fair Housing Act. For example,
when an employee alleges discrimination against the
employer for opposing discriminatory practices.
Such cases should be processed concurrently under
the Fair Housing Act.
D. Title VI and Section 109 Complaints
The majority of complaints against State and local
governments that are covered under Title VI also are
covered under Section 109. If a complainant does not
insist otherwise, an allegation that falls under both
Title VI and Section 109 normally should be accepted
under both statutes. Typically, these allegations should
be consolidated for processing.
E. Age Discrimination and Other Statutes
When a complainant alleges discrimination on more than
one basis, and one of the protected basis is age,
complaints should be taken under all of the relevant
statutes, including the Age Discrimination Act. However,
allegations of age discrimination typically will not be
consolidated in the concurrent investigation. This is
because the requirement for initial referral to the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services (FMCS) for
mediation makes concurrent processing of the complaint
not feasible. The age discrimination complaint should be
processed under the provisions of 24 CFR part 146.
F. Example of a Multi-jurisdictional Complaint
An employee of a city government receiving Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds alleges that she was
fired because she refused to limit information concerning
the availability of housing rehabilitation money only to
White persons and because she had become legally blind.
The Department would have jurisdiction to investigate her
claims under the Fair Housing Act, Title VI, Section 109,
Section 504, and Title II of the ADA. The complaint
should be concurrently processed under all of those
statutes.
Title VI applies because the actions against the employee
had the effect of denying the participation of non-White
persons in the benefits of the program. A Title VI
investigation would focus on discrimination on the basis
4 Keep in mind that Section 109 also covers religion and sex,
unlike Title VI.
9
of race in program services and benefits. The Section 109
investigation would also focus on whether the complainant was
fired because the employee opposed an unlawful practice under
Section 109. The ADA and Section 504 investigations would focus
on whether the complainant was fired because of her
disability. The Fair Housing Act investigation would
focus on whether the respondent violated Section 818, as
well as the other race-based allegations.
III. Multi-Jurisdictional Processing: Administrative Issues
A. Complaint Notification Procedures
The general principle that applies to multi-
jurisdictional complaints is that there should be one
investigation, one record of that investigation, and one
effort to resolve the matter. This principle applies
during the notification process as well. However, assign
a separate complaint number for each statutory basis in
the complaint.
1. Consolidated Fair Housing Act Case Processing
Enter the Fair Housing Act number into the
Integrated Title VIII Tracking System (ITTS)
Indicate that the complaint is being concurrently
processed under Title VI, Section 504, or Section
109 5/ as described on pages 30 and 31 of the ITTS
Data Dictionary.
Unfortunately, the regulations are not consistent
with regard to complaint notification procedures.
-- The Fair Housing Act regulations, at 24 CFR
Sec. 103.40, state that a complaint is
considered to be filed when it contains the
names of the complainant and respondent, the
address of the dwelling, if relevant, and a
statement of facts and dates concerning the
alleged discriminatory practice. The
respondent must be notified
5 As stated above, the Department has prepared a proposed rule
implementing Section 109. The complaint processing procedures
under the proposed rule are very similar to those under Section
504. Until the final rule is published, Field Offices should
follow Section 504 processing procedures with respect to Section
109 complaints. References in this discussion of notification
procedures should be read to include Section 109 complaints.
10
within 10 calendar days of the filing of the
complaint under 24 CFR 103.50, except in the
case of an amended complaint which is,
nonetheless, considered to be filed as of the
original date of filing (24 CFR 103.42).
-- The Section 504 rule, 24 CFR 8.56(e), provides
for a two-step process. In step one, the
complaint is filed and, within 10 calendar
days, the respondent is provided with notice
to that effect. In step two, however, the
Department conducts an evaluation of whether
to "accept" the complaint. This 'evaluation
period takes place over 20 calendar days. The
parties (and the award official, if the
complaint is accepted) are then notified of
the Department's decision to accept, reject,
or refer the complaint to another agency.
-- There is no formal notification period
described in the ADA rule. However, the
Department of Justice rule, 28 CFR 35.171,
states that Section 504 procedures are to be
applied to concurrent Section 504/ADA
complaints.6
Note that a complaint is "filed" under the ADA when
it is received by any Federal agency. Therefore,
there may be different filing dates for the Section
504 and the ADA complaint if the ADA complaint is
received first (e.g., via a referral from the
Department of Justice). In that case, the filing
date of the ADA complaint is the date that it was
received in any Federal agency; the filing date of
the Section 504 complaint is the date that the
complaint was received by the Department.
To facilitate consolidated processing with Fair
Housing Act cases, the two-step process described
above should be eliminated. Otherwise, for the
reasons discussed in III (A) (2), a respondent's
answer to the non-Fair Housing Act complaint may
not be required, delaying the investigation until
60 days after the complaint is filed. The Section
6/ The Department must first review the complaint and determine
whether it has jurisdiction under Section 504 or under the ADA
because it is the designated agency to process the complaint under
subpart G of the Title II regulations. If HUD is not the proper
agency, it must refer the complaint to the appropriate agency or to
the Department of Justice. This should be accomplished within the
20 day "acceptance" period specified in Section 504.
11
The Section 504/ADA complaint should be considered
to be accepted at the same time as the initial 10-
day notice is given under the Fair Housing Act and
Section 504. This 10-day notice/acceptance period
will be applied to Title VI and Section 109
complaints that are consolidated for processing
with Fair Housing Act complaints.7/
Presently, the Fair Housing Act 10-day notification
letters are generated by the computerized database.
Until we develop the capability to issue one
notification letter including all appropriate
statutes, regulations and Executive Orders, use
current notification letters under Section 504, the
ADA, and Section 109. Moreover, send all of these
notification letters to the respondent(s) at the
same time, in one envelope.
2. Consolidated non-Fair Housing Act Cases
When the Fair Housing Act is not one of the
statutes under which a consolidated case is being
processed (e.g., Section 504 and ADA; Title VI and
Section 504), follow Section 504's 20-day period
for review and acceptance and rejection of the
complaint for all statutes. (Depending on the
facts, it may be appropriate to reject the 504
complaint and to accept the Title VI complaint.)
Note that the complaints should be recorded as
being received in the MCATS system on the date that
they are received.
a. Respondent's Answer
Only the Fair Housing Act and the Section 504
regulation contain formal requirements
involving the respondent's answer to the
complaint. The Fair Housing Act provides that
the respondent's answer may be submitted
within 10 days of receipt of notice that a
complaint has been filed. Section 504
requires that the respondent answer the
complaint within 30 days of receiving
notification of acceptance of the complaint.
In situations where the concurrent complaint
is under the Fair Housing Act and other
statutes, follow the 10-day time period, not
10 days for the FHA and 30 days for 504.
7/ The proposed Section 109 rule follows Section 504; Title VI
does not include a formal notification requirement.
12
b. Pre-finding Settlement Attempts
All of the civil rights statutes encourage
informal resolution of complaints. The fact
that complaints are being concurrently
processed should not hinder those attempts.
If a complaint is being concurrently
processed, it can be resolved at any time. If
the settlement does not resolve all of the
issues in all of the concurrently processed
complaints, the agreement must ensure that the
settlement does not preclude processing under
the remaining statutes. Under no circumstance
should the proposed relief violate other
statutes.
The relief that the Department obtains in
concurrently processed cases should be the
relief that the complainant requests and, to
which the respondent agrees, as well as any
other relief that the Department, at that
stage of the investigation, believes is
appropriate. In most cases, all specific
relief (as opposed to general formula
statements about complying with the law, non-
retaliation, etc.) will be tailored to the
allegations raised by the complainant.
The Agreement should be entitled "Conciliation
and Voluntary Compliance Agreement." It should
indicate which statutes and complaint numbers
it covers. 8/
Occasionally a situation will arise when a
complainant is dissatisfied with monetary
relief to which the Department otherwise would
agree in resolution of a complaint. Under the
Fair Housing Act, the complainant must sign a
conciliation agreement to resolve the
complaint; however, the complainant does not
have to agree to the terms of a Voluntary
Compliance Agreement (VCA) and does not sign
the agreement. As a practical matter, there
is little advantage to a respondent in a
concurrent case agreeing to a settlement that
does not entirely resolve the dispute(s).
However, if the respondent does
8/ The right of the Department to conduct a Department initiated
complaint (either a Secretary-initiated complaint investigation or
a compliance review) of facts and issue not covered in the
Agreement should be stated explicitly in the Agreement.
13
agree to enter into a VCA, the Enforcement
Center may choose to take one of the following
courses of action:
1) eliminate any reference to individual
relief in the VCA, and continue the Title
VIII complaint;
2) include a non-disputed amount in the VCA,
include the remaining disputed amount in
the Title VIII negotiations, enter into
the VCA, and close the non-Title VIII
complaint.
c. Investigation
Concurrent complaint investigations should be
assigned to one person for investigation. In
complex cases, more than one person may be
assigned to the investigation, but all issues
should be investigated at one time. The Equal
Opportunity Specialist(s) should investigate
all aspects of the complaints under all
statutes and record the results of his fact-
gathering in one file. If the investigation
focuses on the allegations related to the
complainant.and the harm that the complainant
suffered, investigations of concurrent
complaints should not take longer to complete.
Use the Fair Housing Act case file format for
locating and tabbing evidence. The
investigative plan should include an
anticipated completion date of 75 days after
the complaints were filed. The subpoena power
available under the Fair Housing Act may be
helpful in meeting this deadline. Use the
case analysis worksheet(s) to reflect the
analysis under all of the statutes. The
record of the investigation should be made in
one Final Investigative Report (FIR). The
format of the FIR should follow the Title VIII
format in accordance with the guidance dated
April 27, 1995.
If the investigation is being conducted under
more than one statute other than the Fair
Housing Act, then either the Section 504
format for compiling the file and preparing a
FIR or the Fair Housing Act format may be
used. There should be one file and one FIR.
The investigative plan should include an
anticipated completion date of no longer than
155 days.
14
d. Notification of Findings
Under the Fair Housing Act, findings are
communicated through a Determination and
Charge. While a Determination of No Reasonable
Cause is a single document, a Determination of
Reasonable Cause involves two documents:
issuance of a Determination and a Charge of
Discrimination. The other civil rights
statutes use a different two step process: a
Letter of Findings (LOF), which may be subject
to challenge by the parties, followed by a
Letter of Determination (LOD).
Under Section 504 (and the ADA and Section
109), the parties have a right to request a
review of the LOF in Headquarters, whether the
finding is one of compliance (complainant
requests review) or noncompliance (respondent
requests review). There is no right to request
a review of a compliance finding under Title
VI. Under Title VI, if compliance is found,
the LOF and LOD are issued simultaneously. If
the LOF finds noncompliance, then the
respondent is given a chance to respond to the
LOF prior to issuance of the LOD.
These differences make concurrent and
consolidated processing at this stage
difficult, but not impossible. The most
important objectives should be: 1) to ensure
that the findings differ only because of
substantive differences in the covered bases
or the statutes themselves; 9/ 2) to provide
timely and effective notice to the parties of
the findings, at or near the same time; 3) to
communicate effectively the parties' post-
finding review rights, if any; and 4) to
facilitate the Department's future efforts to
obtain a remedy for proven discrimination. A
sample Letter of Determination/Letter of
Findings is attached.
9/ The Field Office should make sure to issue consistent findings
in cases where complaints have been filed under multiple statutes
involving the same allegations but a decision has been made to
process the cases separately.
15
If, under Section 504/ADA/section 109, the
complainant requests a review, the review by
Headquarters will encompass those statutes and
the Fair Housing Act finding. Either the
Office of Investigations or the Office of
Program Compliance and Disability Rights will
take the lead on the review as determined by
the appropriate Assistant Secretary. If a
decision is made to remand or reverse the
finding of compliance, and that decision would
apply to the Fair Housing Act finding as well,
the parties will be notified that the
Assistant Secretary has exercised her
discretion to review and reopen the Fair
Housing Act finding.
e. Post-finding settlement Attempts 10/
The only major difference among the statutes
in post-finding settlements is the name of the
document that memorializes the agreement. The
document is either a Conciliation Agreement
(Title VIII) or a Voluntary Compliance
Agreement (Section 504/ADA/Section 109/Title
VI) This difference is rather easily solved;
any such document should be entitled
"Conciliation and Voluntary Compliance
Agreement." The substance of the document will
identify and treat relief that is provided
under different statutes as separate remedial
provisions.
For example, the individual relief section
might provide that under the Fair sousing Act
and Section 504, the complainant is being
provided a public housing unit and
compensation for higher rent that the
complainant paid while the complainant was
unlawfully denied the unit because of
disability. A separate paragraph under that
section of the Agreement might state that the
complainant is being paid pursuant to the Fair
Housing Act, $25,000 for the humiliation,
anxiety and emotional distress suffered as a
result of the discrimination. A third
paragraph may state that under
10/ This section refers to settlement attempts of Title VIII cases
during the 26-day period after the issuance of the charge but
before either an election is made or the administrative proceeding
has commenced. After that time, any efforts to settle a case must
involve the participation of either the Office of General Counsel
or the Department of Justice.
16
Section 504, the Public Housing Authority
(PHA) will install a ramp and a roll-in shower
in the complainant's unit at the PHA's
expense.
f. Enforcement of Findings of Violations
The language of that part of the Conciliation
and VCA that discusses how the Agreement will
be enforced will reflect the different
mechanisms and options under all statutes.
For example, a concurrent Fair Housing Act
case will specify that a breach of the
Agreement could lead to direct court
enforcement action by the DOJ. The agreement
will also state that the Department will take
all other available actions for a breach of
the agreement, up to and including termination
or refusal to approve funds. If one of the
concurrent violations is of the ADA, then the
Agreement will reflect that violations will be
referred to the Attorney General.
In some cases, the substantive provisions of
the ADA are broader than Section 504. If the
recipient is found to be in noncompliance with
the ADA but not the comparable Section 504
standards, the Department will seek funding
termination only with respect to those acts
that do constitute a violation of Section 504.
All of the other noncompliance findings will
be referred to the DOJ for other appropriate
action, if conciliation is not possible.
Elizabeth K. Julian
Assistant Secretary
Attachments
ATTACHMENTS INCLUDE TABLES OF COMPARISON OF COMPLAINT PROCESSING
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.