context: This is not an either-or proposition. The fact that some states, like Ohio, delegate the administration of public assistance programs to counties or municipalities should not mean that those states are free of all statutory obligations.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 255 F.Supp.2d 79, 79
citation_a.parenthetical: "It would be plainly unreasonable to permit a mandatorily designated State agency to shed its NVRA responsibilities because it has chosen to delegate the rendering of its services to local municipal agencies."
citation_a.sentence: See New York, 255 F.Supp.2d at 79 (“It would be plainly unreasonable to permit a mandatorily designated State agency to shed its NVRA responsibilities because it has chosen to delegate the rendering of its services to local municipal agencies.”); see also Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 286 (2d Cir.2003) (holding that New York could not avoid its obligations under the Rehabilitation Act by delegating authority to localities to deliver federally funded services).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 331 F.3d 261, 286
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that New York could not avoid its obligations under the Rehabilitation Act by delegating authority to localities to deliver federally funded services
citation_b.sentence: See New York, 255 F.Supp.2d at 79 (“It would be plainly unreasonable to permit a mandatorily designated State agency to shed its NVRA responsibilities because it has chosen to delegate the rendering of its services to local municipal agencies.”); see also Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 286 (2d Cir.2003) (holding that New York could not avoid its obligations under the Rehabilitation Act by delegating authority to localities to deliver federally funded services).