Privacy Act Notice Privacy Act Notice. The collection of this information is authorized by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 633a; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794a; and Executive Order 11478, as amended. This information will be used to adjudicate complaints of alleged discrimination and to evaluate the effectiveness of the EEO program.

Ufllt Assigned EAS 21 141 Center Avenue se-11, NJ 08080 Sewell Post Off"ice Privacy Act Notice Privacy Act Notice. The collectiOn of this infonnalion Is authorized by the Equal Employment Opportunity Ad of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16; the Age Discrimination In Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 6338; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794a; and l;xacutive Older 11478, as amended. This information will be used to adjudicate ccmplainls of alleged discrimination and to evaluate the effectiveness of the EEO program.

The remedies available to federal employees under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act are the same remedies available to them under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. 29 U.S.C. § 794a; cf. West v. Gibson, 527 U.S. 212, 217 (1999) (EEOC permitted to award damages to government employees in administrative proceedings under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, §1981a(a)(1)). Because the 24 Case 1:13-cv-00394-RDM Document 31 Filed 01/06/14 Page 30 of 35 remedies of Section 501 are the same as those under Title VII, Mr. Leiterman is able to proceed with his case for compensatory damages.

of 1967. as amended, 29 U.S.C.633a; The Rehabilitation Aci o/ 1973, a.s amended, 29 U.S.C. 794a; and Executive Order 1 H78, as amended. This lnfom,ation win be used to adjudicate complaints ot alleged discrimination and to evaluate !

Because the same remedy provision at issue here was at issue in Lane, the Court finds Lane's analysis controlling In Lane, the Supreme Court specifically noted the difference in language between the remedy provision and the general prohibition of discriminatory actions contained in § 504. § 504 applies to “any Executive agency,” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), while the remedy of monetary damages is only available to individuals “aggrieved by any act or failure to act by any recipient of Federal assistance or Federal provider of such assistance, ” 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2) (emphasis added). The Court observed that the remedy provision “makes no mention whatsoever of programs or activities conducted by any Executive agency, the plainly more far-reaching language Congress employed in § 504(a) itself.”

Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act in turn incorporates selected remedy provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including remedies available under Titles VI and VII of the 1964 Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 794a (1994). Case 6:16-cv-01923-TC Document 21 Filed 12/08/16 Page 10 of 12 Page 11 - DEFENDANTS' 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW VAN/cbh/7852633-v1 Department of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 (503) 947-4700 / Fax: (503) 947-4792 Because individuals may not be held liable for alleged deprivations of rights under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act, plaintiffs’ ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against the individual defendants must be dismissed.3 VI.

In each of these statutes, Congress has set forth detailed procedures, based on those first introduced in Title VI in 1964, see id. §§ 2000d-1, 20003-2, for administrative and judicial review of a governmental finding of discrimination and decision to withdraw federal financial assistance, accord 20 U.S.C. §§ 1682, 1683 (Title IX); 42 U.S.C. §§ 6104, 6105 (Age Act); 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2) (Section 504) (cross-referencing “[t]he remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in [T]itle VI”).8 The Rule likewise specifies that the procedures set forth in the Department’s Title VI regulations govern proceedings concerning discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and disability under Section 1557. 45 C.F.R. § 92.

B. PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL CLAIMS LACK MERIT 1. PLAINTIFF’S § 504 CLAIMS LACK MERIT Plaintiff’s claims under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794a) fail to state a cause of action. Section § 504, by its terms, applies only where an otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States: solely by reason of her or his disability, [is] excluded from the participation in, [is] denied the benefits of, or [is] subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.

Case 2:13-cv-07511-DMG-RAO Document 49 Filed 07/13/16 Page 10 of 14 Page ID #:625 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (9th Cir. 1990); see also 29 U.S.C. §§ 791, 794a. To the extent Plaintiff failed to raise claims in his MSPB appeal, he failed to exhaust administrative remedies on such claims. See B.K.B., 276 F.3d at 1099-1100.

See MX Grp., Inc. v. City of Covington, 293 F.3d 326, 332 (6th Cir. 2002). 2:15-cv-12611-GAD-RSW Doc # 32 Filed 01/20/16 Pg 12 of 39 Pg ID 432 5 include declaratory and injunctive relief. 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq). Defendants are subject to the RA. Am. Compl. ¶ 51.