Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272, 287-88, 289 n. 76 (5th Cir.2005) (enbanc)). 48 . Id. at 223. See also id. at 231 ("Because we interpret Title II and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in pari materia, we hold that § 504 extends to such sidewalks as well.” (emphasis added)). Indeed, Title II does not apply in employment discrimination cases at all. Taylor v. City of Shreveport, 798 F.3d 276, 282 (5th Cir.2015) ("Unlike Title I of the ADA, Title II does not create a cause of action for employment discrimination.” (citations omitted)). 49 . Frame, 657 F.3d at 223'(emphasis added) (citing Kemp, 610 F.3d at 234-35; Pace, 403 F.3d at 287-88, 289 n. 76). 50 . Fleming, 587 F.3d at 944 (emphasis in original) (quoting Schrader, 296 F.3d at 972). But see Soledad, 304 F.3d at 505 (<HOLDING>). 51 . Fleming, 587 F.3d at 944 (emphasis in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding rehabilitation act applicable (B) holding  504 of the rehabilitation act does not require equivalent benefits for different disabilities (C) holding the ada and the rehabilitation act applicable (D) holding that the rehabilitation act does not incorporate title is causation standard (E) holding that exemption under the ada does not preclude liability under the rehabilitation act
Output (English): holding  504 of the rehabilitation act does not require equivalent benefits for different disabilities