Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Final Rule: Section by Section Fact Sheet for Recipients of Financial Assistance from HHS

This Fact Sheet provides an educational summary, not an independent interpretation of the rule. To read the final rule visit:
Federal Register :: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities Receiving  Federal Financial Assistance

On May 9, 2024, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) published a final rule, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance. The rule, which is effective July 8, 2024, updates, clarifies, and strengthens HHS’ implementing regulation for Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504). This Fact Sheet includes detailed summaries of provisions within Section 504 to provide an overview of who is protected by Section 504 and who is obligated to comply with Section 504. It also aims to inform recipients of Federal financial assistance about new sections within the rule, explain revisions made to ensure consistency with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), advise recipients of their administrative responsibilities to ensure compliance with the rule, and provide information about HHS OCR’s enforcement process.

Definitions of Who is Protected by and What Entities are Covered by this Rule

Defining “Disability,” § 84.4

With respect to an individual, “disability” means a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment. This definition of disability is construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage.

Defining “Qualified Individual with a Disability,” § 84.10

In order to be protected under this rule, an individual must be a "qualified individual with a disability,” i.e., the individual must, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meet the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by the recipient of Federal financial assistance.

Establishing that a person with a disability is qualified is often straightforward. For example, a child with a disability who needs to have their tonsils removed will generally be a qualified individual with a disability for tonsillectomy; an individual with an intellectual disability determined to need an organ transplant will generally be a qualified individual with a disability for an organ transplant.

Defining “Federal Financial Assistance,” § 84.1; 84.10

Section 504 imposes nondiscrimination obligations on programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. Federal financial assistance includes grants, loans, cooperative agreements, certain contracts or subgrants that HHS provides in the form of funds, services of Federal personnel, real and personal property, and other things of value. Federal procurement contracts or contracts of insurance or guaranty are not considered Federal financial assistance.

Defining “Recipient,” § 84.10

Section 504 defines a “recipient” broadly to include entities to which Federal financial assistance is extended directly or through another recipient, excluding the ultimate beneficiary of the assistance. Such entities include states or their political subdivisions, any instrumentality of a state or its political subdivision, any public or private agency, institution, organization, or other entity, or any person.

New Sections Clarifying Recipients’ Non-Discrimination Obligations

Medical Treatment, § 84.56

Under § 84.56 of the rule, recipients may not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities when providing medical treatment. “Medical Treatment” is meant to be interpreted in a broad and inclusive manner and encompasses the full range of health care services. Under the new rule, recipients cannot deny or limit clinically appropriate treatment to a qualified individual with a disability when the denial is based on bias or stereotypes, a belief that the individual will be a burden on others, or a belief that the life of an individual with a disability has a lesser value than the life of a person without a disability. The rule also prohibits the denial of treatment to a person with a disability when the same treatment would be offered to a similarly situated person without a disability, provided that the disability does not impact the effectiveness, ease of administration, or have a medical effect on the condition to which the treatment is administered.

Section 84.56 continues to apply during the adoption of different standards for the allocation of scarce resources during emergencies, commonly referred to as “crisis standards of care.” This section also applies to organ transplants, judgments of medical futility, the provision of or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, and the unjustified exclusion of participation of people with disabilities in recipients’ clinical research programs.

While developing its revised Section 504 rule, the Department was made aware of medical treatment situations where violations of Section 504 likely occurred. These include denying an autistic person a heart transplant because of a belief that he wouldn’t be able to manage postoperative care or similarly refusing to provide treatment to a person with substance use disorder based on a belief that she would be less likely to comply with treatment protocols.

Other scenarios of potential discrimination discussed by the Department in the preamble of Section 504 include denying a teenage boy with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) antibiotics and other medical care needed for a life-sustaining treatment when the boy becomes seriously ill and instead referring the boy to hospice care when a similarly situated child without a disability would have received access to necessary medical care. Similarly, where a physician refuses to provide a ventilator to a patient with Alzheimer’s disease who has developed pneumonia simply because the physician believes the patient's quality of life will be poor even if they recover from the pneumonia, that physician likely violates Section 504.

Further recurring examples of potential discrimination brought to the Department’s attention during the comment period for the Section 504 rulemaking included women with intellectual disabilities or women who are little people who sought a prescription for contraception but were instead only offered sterilization based on the belief that any children they may have would likely have their mothers’ disabilities. Similarly, the practice of physicians pressuring or even requiring persons with disabilities seeking significant surgery to sign a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) order when not doing so for others without a disability who seek the same medical intervention would likely violate Section 504.

The Department also recognizes the importance of medical professional expertise and the role that professional judgment plays in medical treatment decisions. Accordingly, the rule acknowledges that treatment can be denied if the recipient has a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying or limiting treatment or the recipient has reasonably determined, based on current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence, that such medical treatment is not clinically appropriate for a particular individual.

For example, it would not violate Section 504 if a recipient declined to provide chemotherapy to a patient with a disability based on a judgment that it would not extend the patient’s life or mitigate the symptoms of the patient’s cancer. Nor would it violate the Department’s rule where a recipient determined that a patient with a disability would be exceedingly unlikely to survive cardiac surgery and decides the surgery is not a medically appropriate treatment. In contrast, it would violate Section 504 to deny a patient access to lifesaving treatment due to a belief that the patient would be better off dead because of a physician’s perception of their quality of life or because of a belief they would constitute a burden on others.

Section 504 recognizes the importance of a medical professional providing information regarding the implications of different courses of treatment, based on current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence, to an individual with a disability or their authorized representative. The ability of a person with a disability to understand the available options and to make an informed decision depends in part on the expertise and candor of the treating professional. However, Section 504 prohibits discrimination in seeking consent to provide, withdraw or withhold treatment. Examples of such discrimination may include applying unique pressure to a person with a disability to agree to the treating professional’s position or conditioning access to a particular treatment for a person with a disability on agreeing to a particular advanced care planning decision the recipient would not require for a similarly situated nondisabled patient.

Section 504 does not require recipients to provide medical treatment where the individual with a disability, or their authorized representative, does not consent to that treatment. People with disabilities retain their right to decline treatment for any reason and recipients that do not provide treatment declined by the person with a disability are not in violation of this section.

Value Assessment, § 84.57

Recipients are prohibited from using any measure that discounts the value of life extension based on disability to deny or afford an unequal opportunity to qualified individuals with disabilities. This applies to the eligibility or referral for, or provision or withdrawal of any aid, benefit, or service, including the terms or conditions under which they are made available. For example, the rule would prohibit a recipient from using a value assessment method that assigns lower value to extending the lives of people with cystic fibrosis than persons without cystic fibrosis when designing a drug formulary or utilization management rules under which patients receive access to medication.

When recipients make use of value assessment methods to determine eligibility or referral for, or provision or withdrawal of, any aid, benefit, or service, including the terms or conditions under which they are made available, they must not make use of any value assessment method that discounts the value of life-extension based on disability. The rule also clarifies that all other provisions of Section 504 also apply to value assessment activities just as they do to other recipient activities.

Section 504 does not prohibit the use of any specific value assessment method. Rather, it prohibits the discriminatory use of any value assessment method that discounts the value of the life of a qualified person with a disability.

Child Welfare, § 84.60

Section 504 prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the child welfare system, including parents, prospective parents, foster parents, caregivers, and children. Recipients are prohibited from making decisions based on speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations that a parent, caregiver, foster parent, or prospective parent, because of a disability, cannot safely care for a child. Nor may recipients make decisions on those prohibited bases about a child with a disability. For example, Section 504 would prohibit the removal of a 2-year-old daughter from her parents because both parents are blind, without any non- discriminatory analysis of the ability of the parents to care for the child and the availability of support services for the parents.

Discriminatory actions are prohibited when making determinations throughout the child welfare process including, but not limited to, custody, parent-child visitation, family preservation and unification services, and the termination of parental rights. Recipients also must not deny a qualified caregiver with a disability the opportunity to participate in child welfare programs or activities, such as parenting skills programs, and in- and out-of-home services. When determining whether a prospective parent with a disability should have the opportunity to become a foster parent, for example, child welfare services can avoid potential discrimination on the basis of disability by making an individualized assessment of their ability to be a foster parent and considering whether support services offered to other foster parents would allow them to participate in the foster care program if they were made available.

Recipients must ensure that their parenting evaluation tools and materials do not simply rely on a single measure of the person’s disability to assess the individual’s parenting ability. Instead, such tools and materials must be based in evidence and research, be conducted by a qualified professional, and be tailored to assess actual parenting ability. The removal of a 5-year-old daughter from a mother with intellectual and developmental disabilities based solely on the mother’s IQ score, without any analysis of the mother’s capacity or fitness to safely care for the child, would violate Section 504 given the evidence demonstrating that parental IQ is a poor predictor of parenting competence.

Integration, § 84.76

Recipients must administer programs and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities. Community-based services must be provided when such services are appropriate, the affected person does not oppose community-based treatment, and the placement in a community setting can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available and the needs of others receiving services.

Section 504 defines a segregated setting to include those that are characterized by a population of exclusively or primarily people with disabilities, regimented activities, a lack of privacy or autonomy, and policies that limit visitors or the ability of people to engage with the greater community. Segregated settings are not appropriate for most people with disabilities and placing an individual in a segregated setting must be justified based on that person’s individual needs.

Section 504’s general prohibition of discriminatory segregation also specifically prohibits certain practices that could result in unnecessary segregation or serious risk of segregation. These practices include: 1) establishing policies or practices that limit or condition access to the most integrated setting appropriate; 2) providing greater benefits or more favorable terms in segregated settings compared to integrated settings; 3) establishing more restrictive rules and requirements for people in integrated settings compared to segregated settings; and 4) failing to provide community-based services, resulting in institutionalization or serious risk of institutionalization.

Recipients are not required to take actions under this section when a requested modification would fundamentally alter the nature of their program or activity.

Web, Mobile, and Kiosk Accessibility, §§ 84.82 - 84.89

Recipients that use kiosks – which are self-service transaction machines made available by recipients – must ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities are not excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of any program or activity provided through kiosks. Recipients can do so by ensuring that the kiosks they use are accessible to people with disabilities or by implementing procedures that allow people with disabilities who cannot use kiosks because of inaccessible features to access their programs without using a kiosk. For example, a recipient with insufficiently accessible kiosks may be required to allow people with disabilities to go directly to the personnel at the main desk to register for necessary services.

Some people with disabilities, including those with visual, auditory, physical, speech, cognitive, language, learning, and neurological disabilities, have difficulty interacting with and understanding some web content and mobile apps. These individuals can benefit from standards that make web content and mobile applications more perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust. Section 504 adopts accessibility standards for web content and mobile apps that address these issues.

Effective May 11, 2026 for recipients with 15 or more employees and May 10, 2027 for recipients with fewer than 15 employees, recipients must ensure that their web content and mobile apps comply with the specific technical standards of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 levels A and AA (WCAG 2.1 AA), the internationally recognized private standard that the rule adopts.

Section 504 contains five specific exceptions from compliance with the technical standards. If content falls under an exception, it means that the recipient does not need to make its content conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA. However, if there is a specific request from an individual with a disability, the recipient may still have to provide that web content or content in mobile apps to the individual in an accessible format to comply with other, existing Section 504 obligations, including the obligation to make reasonable modifications in polices, practices or procedures (§ 84.68(b)(7)), the obligation to ensure that communications with people with disabilities are as effective as communications with people without disabilities (§ 84.77) and the obligation to provide people with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from the recipient’s programs or activities (§ 84.68(b)(1)(ii)).

The five exceptions are archived web content, preexisting conventional electronic documents, content posted by a third party, conventional electronic documents, and preexisting social media posts.

Archived web content (§ 84.85(a))

The exception for archived web content is meant to capture historic web content that, while outdated or superfluous, is maintained unaltered in a dedicated archived area for reference, research, or recordkeeping. To be excepted, this web content must meet all of the following conditions:

1. It only includes web content that was created before the date the recipient is required to comply with § 84.84 or reproduces paper documents or contents of other physical media created before the date the recipient is required to comply with § 84.84;
2. It is retained exclusively for reference, research, or recordkeeping;
3. It is not altered or updated after the date of archiving: and
4. It is organized and stored in a dedicated areas or areas clearly identified as being archived.

If a recipient alters or updates the content after it is posted in an archive, the content would not meet the third part of the definition of archived web content and it would generally then need to conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA.

Preexisting Conventional Electronic Documents (§ 84.85(b))

These are conventional electronic documents that are available as part of the recipient’s web content or mobile apps before the date the recipient is required to comply with § 84.84. This exception does not apply if such documents are currently used to apply for, gain access to, or participate in the recipient’s programs or activities. Conventional electronic documents are web content or content in mobile apps in portable document formats (PDFs); word processor file formats; presentation file formats, or spreadsheet file formats. This is an exhaustive list of covered conventional electronic documents.

Content Posted by a Third Party (§ 84.85(c))

This exception includes all content posted by a third party, unless the third party is posting due to contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the recipient. This is a narrow exception, but it would apply, for example, where the recipient allows comments from members of the public on a social media page and third-party individual independently comments on a post on the recipient’s page. Where, for example, the recipient links to online payment processing websites offered by third parties to accept the payment of fees or to pay for any recipient services, the exception does not apply.

Individualized Password-Protected Documents or Otherwise Secured Conventional Electronic Documents (§ 84.85(d))

This exception applies to documents that are about a specific individual, their property, or their account and are password-protected or otherwise secured. This exception alleviates the potential burden on recipients of making all individualized, password-protected or otherwise secured conventional electronic documents accessible even if the person the document pertains to does not have a disability. It still requires individuals with disabilities to be able to access information from documents that pertain to them. Examples of individualized documents include medical records, notes about a specific patient, or receipts for purchase, like a purchase for durable medical goods. Content that is broadly applicable or offered to the general public is not subject to this exception. This exception only applies to the defined category of conventional electronic documents, which is defined above in the section relating to preexisting conventional electronic documents.

Preexisting social media posts (§ 84.85(e))

This exception applies to preexisting social media posts that were posted before the date that a recipient is required to comply with § 84.84 of Section 504. For recipients with fifteen or more employees that date is May 11, 2026; for recipients with fewer that fifteen employees, that date is May 10, 2027. Recipients must ensure that their social media posts going forward from the recipient’s compliance date must be accessible. While the recipient’s social media posts must be accessible, the recipient is not responsible for ensuring that the various social media platforms themselves conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA.

Conforming Alternate Versions (§ 84.86)

Section 504 allows recipients to use conforming alternate versions of web content or mobile apps only when it is not possible to make the web content or mobile apps directly accessible due to technical or legal limitations. Conforming alternate versions are separate versions of web content that are accessible, up-to-date, contain the same information and functionality as the inaccessible content that they mirror, and can be reached in particular ways, such as through a conforming page or an accessibility-supported mechanism. Recipients who rely on conforming alternate versions must avoid creating a segregated approach that is a worse experience for individuals with disabilities and must meet the challenge of keeping two different versions of the web content or mobile app up to date.

Equivalent Facilitation (§ 84.87)

Recipients may use alternate designs, methods, or techniques from those required by this section as long as those deigns, methods, or techniques provide substantially equivalent or greater accessibility and usability to web content and mobile apps. This means that instead of conforming to WCAG 2.1 AA, a recipient could conform to an alternate standard (such as WCAG 2.2 AA or AAA) as long as that alternate standard provides substantially equivalent or greater accessibility and usability.

Duties (§ 84.88)

Recipients are not required to take actions under this section that would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens, but must take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would ensure that people with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the recipient to the maximum extent possible.

Noncompliance that has Minimal Impact on Access (§ 84.89)

Section 504 allows nonconformance with WCAG 2.1 AA in very limited circumstances. Such nonconformance is allowable only when the recipient can demonstrate that the nonconformance has such a minimal impact on access that it would not affect the ability of people with disabilities to use the recipient’s web content or mobile app. The recipient must be able to show that people with disabilities have access to the same information, are able to engage in the same interactions, conduct the same transactions, and otherwise participate in or benefit from the same programs or activities as people without disabilities in a manner that provides substantially equivalent timeliness, privacy, independence, and ease of use.

The Department notes that using a staffed telephone service that is available 24/7, instead of having accessible web content, does not provide equal access, given that websites generally allow members of the public to quickly review larger quantities of information with more privacy than they would be able to on a phone call.

Section 504 also applies to situations that people with disabilities brought to the Department’s attention as common practices, including requiring people to schedule vaccinations on websites that are not compatible with screen-reader software or require the use of a computer mouse to select necessary boxes, or using an online application for benefits for a human service program that is incompatible with screen readers. Other examples of practices that must comply with Section 504 include providing health care information on videos on websites or mobile apps that are not captioned or using a telehealth platform that does not permit the addition of a sign language interpreter on a video call.

Accessible Medical Equipment (MDE), §§ 84.90-84.94

Section 504 prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities because the medical diagnostic equipment (MDE) used by a recipient in its programs or activities is not accessible to or usable by people with disabilities. MDE includes examination tables, examination chairs (such as chairs used for eye examinations or dental examinations), weight scales, mammography equipment, X-ray machines and other radiological equipment commonly used for diagnostic purposes by health professionals. The Department has adopted the standards for accessible MDE established by the U.S. Access Board under Section 510 of the Rehabilitation Act (Standards for Accessible MDE).

Under Section 504, if a recipient purchases, leases, or acquires MDE after July 8, 2024, it must be accessible MDE that meets the accessibility requirements of these Standards for Accessible MDE, unless and until the recipient satisfies certain scoping requirements. For general medical practices, like physicians’ offices, clinics, hospitals, and outpatient facilities, the recipient must purchase, lease, or acquire accessible MDE until at least 10 percent of the total number of units (but no fewer than one unit) of each type of MDE in use is accessible. For medical facilities that specialize in treating conditions that affect mobility, at least 20 percent of the total number of units (but no fewer than one unit) of each type of MDE in use must meet the Standards for Accessible MDE. In addition, by July 8, 2026, a recipient that uses examination tables and/or weight scales must purchase, lease, or acquire at least one exam table and/or at least one weight scale that meet the Standards for Accessible MDE, unless the recipient already has them in place.

Hospitals and large clinics with multiple departments must disperse accessible MDE required by Section 504 in a manner that is proportionate by departments, clinics, or specialties using MDE.

Once this accessible equipment is acquired, it must be placed in a manner that follows other existing accessibility requirements, such as having the equipment on an accessible route and being usable by people with disabilities.

Regardless of whether a recipient purchases, leases, or otherwise acquires accessible MDE, they are still required to operate their programs and activities that use MDE so that the program or activity, in its entirety, is accessible to people with disabilities. Some methods that may, in certain circumstances, allow for the overall accessibility of a program or activity offered through MDE include reassignment of services to alternate accessible locations, home visits, delivery of services at alternate accessible sites, or the purchase, lease, or other acquisition of accessible MDE.

Section 504 also requires that recipient staff are qualified to successfully operate accessible MDE, assist with transfers, and ensure program accessibility.

Recipients are not required to alter diagnostically required structural or operational characteristics of MDE that would prevent the use of the MDE for its intended diagnostic purpose.

Revisions Made for Consistency with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Section 504 now includes regulatory provisions that mirror the ADA’s requirements for public and private health care providers and social service providers, which have applied to recipients for years. Recipients that are covered by both Section 504 and the ADA will now have many of the same disability nondiscrimination obligations under both laws.

• Definition of “disability,” § 84.4: The term “disability” should be construed broadly in favor of extensive coverage to the maximum extent permitted. Also, the Department now lists long COVID as a condition that may constitute a disability.
• Reasonable modifications, § 84.68(b)(7): Recipients must make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures unless the recipient can demonstrate modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the program or activity.
• Illegal use of drugs, § 84.69: With some exceptions, the rule does not prohibit discrimination against an individual based on their current illegal use of drugs.
• Maintenance of accessible features, § 84.70: Recipients must maintain in operable working condition those features of facilities and equipment that are required to be readily accessible, but isolated or temporary interruptions due to maintenance or repairs are permitted.
• Retaliation or coercion, § 84.71: Recipients may not retaliate against an individual for making a complaint or objecting to any act or practice made unlawful by Section 504.
• Personal devices and services, § 84.72: Recipients are not required to provide personal or individually prescribed devices, readers, or services of a personal nature.
• Service animals, § 84.73: With some exceptions, recipients must modify their policies, practices, and procedures to permit the use of a service animal, a dog that is individually trained to perform work or tasks. The rule sets forth conditions for when an animal can be properly excluded, responsibilities of the handler, and requirements regarding acceptable inquiries.
• Mobility devices, § 84.74: Recipients must permit individuals to use manually powered mobility devices, such as wheelchairs, in areas open to pedestrian use. The rule sets forth requirements for power-driven mobility devices, such as golf carts, including factors to determine whether the device can be operated safely.
• Direct threat, § 84.75: Recipients are not required to permit individuals to participate in their programs and activities if the individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. The section explains how to determine whether an individual poses a direct threat.
• Accessibility standards, §§ 84.21-84.23: Regarding existing facilities, recipients must operate each of their programs and activities so that the program or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. If a recipient begins new construction or alterations on or after May 9, 2025, it must comply with the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design. If any new construction is begun on or after July 8, 2024, but before May 9, 2025, the recipient has the option of following either the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design or the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards.
• Communications, §§ 84.77-84.81: Recipients must take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with individuals with speech, hearing, and vision disabilities are as effective as communications with others. This may include furnishing auxiliary aids and services such as qualified interpreters or readers, assistive listening devices, text telephones, Braille, and large print. The rule specifically addresses telecommunications, telephone emergency services, and information and signage.
• Limitations: Actions are generally not required if they would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program or activity or in undue administrative and financial burdens. A recipient has the burden of proving that the action would result in such an alteration or burden. The decision as to whether it results in such alteration or burden must be made by the head of the recipient after considering all resources available. In that event, a recipient must take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or burden but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services to the maximum extent possible.

Administrative Requirements and Enforcement Procedures

Designation of responsible employee and adoption of grievance procedures, § 84.7 (retained from original Section 504 rule): Recipients with 15 or more employees must designate an individual to coordinate efforts to comply with the rule and must adopt grievance procedures that provide for a prompt and equitable resolution of complaints.

Notice, § 84.8: Recipients must make available to employees, applicants, participants, beneficiaries, and all other interested persons information regarding this part in a manner necessary to apprise individuals of the protections against discrimination assured them by Section 504.

Enforcement Procedures, § 84.98: The rule adopts the enforcement procedures of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Pursuant to those procedures, HHS conducts investigations and initiates compliance reviews without the need for a complaint to be filed. If you feel that you have been subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, you may file a complaint of discrimination. Please visit the OCR Complaint Portal at ocrportal.hhs.gov/ocr/smartscreenn/main/jsf to file a complaint. You can call OCR’s toll-free number at (800) 368-1019 or (800) 537-7697 (TDD) to speak with someone who can answer your questions and guide you through the process. The Department also accepts complaints by email at OCRcomplaint@hhs.gov and by mail at Centralized Case Management Operations, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Ave., S.W., Room 509F, Washington, D.C. 20201.