29 U.S.C. § 704
Joint funding
Pursuant to regulations prescribed by the President, and to the extent consistent with the other provisions of this chapter, where funds are provided for a single project by more than one Federal agency to an agency or organization assisted under this chapter, the Federal agency principally involved may be designated to act for all in administering the funds provided, and, in such cases, a single non-Federal share requirement may be established according to the proportion of funds advanced by each agency. When the principal agency involved is the Rehabilitation Services Administration, it may waive any grant or contract requirement (as defined by such regulations) under or pursuant to any law other than this chapter, which requirement is inconsistent with the similar requirements of the administering agency under or pursuant to this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: George Koslow v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania D/B/A Dep't of Corr. Donald T. Vaughn Phico Servs. Co. Compservices, Inc, 302 F.3d 161 (3rd Cir. 2002).
George Koslow v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania D/B/A Dep't of Corr. Donald T. Vaughn Phico Servs. Co. Compservices, Inc, 302 F.3d 161 (3rd Cir. 2002). “” Section 504 is codified at 29 U.S.C. § 704 (a). 8 . To reiterate, the 1986 amendment provides: "A state shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court for a violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act…”
Allard v. Coenen (In Re Trans-Indus., Inc.), 419 B.R. 21 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2009). “” 29 U.S.C. § 704 (a)(ll). 2 While BAPCPA added this new trustee duty, it made no related changes to the statutes governing the bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction, 28 U.”
Charles E. Donahue v. Consol. Rail Corp., 224 F.3d 226 (3rd Cir. 2000). “In November 1998, Donahue sued Conrail under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 704 . He alleged that Conrail had violated the Act by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed him to continue working.”
Sutton v. Lader, 185 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 1999). “Sutton sued the Administrator of the Small Business Administration *1206 under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 704 -794e alleging disability discrimination.”
Doe v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Illinois, 429 F. Supp. 2d 930 (N.D. Ill. 2006). “29 U.S.C. § 704 (a). Because Congress enacted that statute pursuant to the Constitution's Spending Clause, it could and did require states to waive their Eleventh Amendment immunity as a condition of receiving federal financial assistance.”
O'Donnell v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., 790 F. Supp. 2d 289 (M.D. Penn. 2011). “The Department of Corrections next argues that it is entitled to summary judgment in its favor on all of Plaintiffs claims that she was discriminated against in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 704 (a) when the Department failed to accommodate her…”
Est. of Earnest Lee Boyland v. United States Dep't of Agric., 242 F. Supp. 3d 24 (D.D.C. 2017). “The parties provided the court with no cases from this Circuit analyzing the scope of the term “financial assistance” in Title VI, particularly in the context of contracts to perform services for the federal government, and this question appears to be unresolved by the D.C.”
Bentley v. Peace & Quiet Realty 2 LLC, 367 F. Supp. 2d 341 (E.D.N.Y 2005). “3d at 334 ("in enacting the anti-discrimination provisions of the FHAA, Congress relied on the standard of reasonable accommodation developed under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 704 .”).”
Doe v. Oyster River Coop. Sch. Dist., 992 F. Supp. 467 (D.N.H. 1997). “Following Franklin’s endorsement of any appropriate remedy under Title IX, many, but not all, lower courts have recognized that punitive damages awards are available under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.”
Vicky M. v. Ne. Educ. Intermediate Unit, 689 F. Supp. 2d 721 (M.D. Penn. 2009). “29 U.S.C. § 704 (a). The plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) she is disabled as defined by the Act; (2) she is otherwise qualified to participate in school activities; (3) the defendants receive federal financial assistance; and (4) the plaintiff was excluded from participation…”
Dethorn Graham v. City of Charlotte M.S. Connor R.B. Townes T. Rice Hilda P. Matos M.M. Chandler, 827 F.2d 945 (4th Cir. 1987). “He also alleged the officers’ conduct amounted to discrimination on the basis of handicap in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 704 . Finally, Graham asserted pendent state claims of assault, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of…”
M.S. Ex Rel. Shihadeh v. Marple Newtown Sch. Dist., 635 F. App'x 69 (3rd Cir. 2015). “and her family (Appellants here) brought claims against the school district and its board (collectively, the “School District”) under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1073, 29 U.S.C. § 704 (“Section 504”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.