Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and third, that § 1983 claims are best characterized as tort claims for personal injury and that the state statute of limitations for personal injuries should be applied to all § 1983 claims. Id. at 276-280, 105 S.Ct. 1938. The Supreme Court extended this reasoning in Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656, 661-662, 107 S.Ct. 2617, 96 L.Ed.2d 572 (1987), holding that state»statutes of limitations for personal injury actions should also be applied to claims under § 1981. Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Goodman, most Courts of Appeal, with the exception of the Fourth Circuit, have applied the state statute of limitations for personal injury actions to claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. See, e.g., Everett v. Cobb Cty. Sch. Dist., 138 F.3d 1407, 1409-10 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Soignier v. Am. Bd. of Plastic Surgery, 92 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that georgias statute of limitations for personal injury actions should be applied to discrimination claims brought under the rehabilitation act and title ii of the ada (B) holding that the same standards apply to claims under the ada and under the rehabilitation act (C) holding that one way for the plaintiff to establish discrimination under title ii of the ada and the rehabilitation act would be to show that the defendant could have reasonably accommodated his disability but refused to do so (D) holding the ada and the rehabilitation act applicable (E) holding that title ii of the ada is not applicable to the federal government
Output (English): holding that one way for the plaintiff to establish discrimination under title ii of the ada and the rehabilitation act would be to show that the defendant could have reasonably accommodated his disability but refused to do so