Opinion ID: 452178
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: (b) THE REHABILITATION ACT

Text: 39 The Maneckes next argue that the district court should not have dismissed their claim brought under Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. We disagree. 40 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 establishes a comprehensive federal program aimed at improving the lot of the handicapped. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624, ----, 104 S.Ct. 1248, 1250, 79 L.Ed.2d 568, 573 (1984). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides in pertinent part: 41 No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States ... shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.... 42 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794. Unlike the EHA, Sec. 504 does not require affirmative action on behalf of handicapped persons, but only the absence of discrimination against those persons. Smith, 104 S.Ct. at 3473; see Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 99 S.Ct. 2361, 60 L.Ed.2d 980 (1979). 43 The district court ruled, as a matter of law, that there is no private right of damages under Section 504 in this Circuit. Manecke, 553 F.Supp. at 790. The Board argues that this conclusion is correct, 8 and, in any event, Smith requires an affirmance of the district court. 9 We need not address either of these contentions, however, because we hold that plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to state a claim under Sec. 504, regardless of whether damages may be recovered under that statute. 44 In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs alleged, in the words of the district court, the denial of an impartial hearing to determine Lauren's residential placement. Id. at 790 n. 4. They did not allege, however, that Lauren was excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under a program or activity receiving federal funding. They accordingly failed to allege a violation of Sec. 504. We affirm the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' Sec. 504 claim.