Opinion ID: 3065127
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Financial Assistance to OPDS

Text: [7] Sharer further argues that, regardless of whether OPDS and the Judicial Department are distinct departments or agencies under section 504, OPDS itself received two kinds of federal financial assistance. First, Sharer contends that she was initially hired in November 1997 by OPDS’s predecessor agency through a program under which Oregon’s Department of Vocational Rehabilitation (“DVR”) subsidized her wages using federal funds. Section 504’s reach, however, encompasses a department or agency receiving federal funds in “only those periods during which the funds are accepted.” Garcia v. SUNY Health Scis. Ctr., 280 F.3d 98, 113 n.2 (2d Cir. 2001). Therefore, the circumstances of Sharer’s hiring in 1997 are irrelevant to whether she can bring a section 504 claim based on discrimination that allegedly occurred in 2003.4 4 Sharer testified that she was aware of another employee OPDS hired through the federally funded DVR program, but she did not state the SHARER v. STATE OF OREGON 13703 [8] Second, Sharer contends OPDS received federal financial assistance by relying on the Judicial Department (which defendants concede received federal financial assistance) to subsidize the costs of ordering transcripts for indigent defendants. Sharer is correct that, for purposes of section 504, “[f]ederal financial assistance can be direct or indirect.” Herman v. United Bhd. of Carpenters, 60 F.3d 1375, 1381 (9th Cir. 1995). But while “[e]ntities that receive federal assistance . . . through an intermediary[ ] are recipients” under section 504, “entities that only benefit economically from federal assistance are not.” NCAA v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459, 468 (1999) (holding that the NCAA’s acceptance of dues from colleges receiving federal funding did not render the NCAA liable under Title IX); see id. at 466 n.3 (noting scope of the federal funding requirements of “several other federal antidiscrimination measures,” including section 504, “is defined in nearly identical terms” to the Title IX requirement). [9] Here, there is no evidence that the Judicial Department financed OPDS’s provision of transcripts “with federal funds earmarked for that purpose.” Id. at 468. Indeed, under the statutory framework operative during the relevant period, the costs of indigent defendants’ transcripts were “paid by the state from funds for that purpose.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.500(5) (1999).5 We therefore conclude that, at most, OPDS “only benefit[s] economically from federal assistance” in receiving period during which the other employee was hired. Therefore, this testimony likewise fails to establish that Oregon waived immunity with respect to OPDS during the period of Sharer’s alleged discrimination. 5 Oregon Revised Statute § 138.500(5) was amended by the 2001 session law establishing the Commission such that “[t]he cost of the transcript preparation” for indigent defendants is now “paid for as provided by the policies, procedures, standards and guidelines of the Public Defense Services Commission.” See 2001 Or. Laws ch. 962, § 29 (codified at Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.500(3)(b)). This provision, however did not become operative until October 1, 2003, subsequent to the period of Sharer’s alleged discrimination. See id. § 15. 13704 SHARER v. STATE OF OREGON aid from Oregon’s Judicial Department for the provision of transcripts. [10] Accordingly, we hold that, notwithstanding defendants’ concession that the Judicial Department received federal funds, Sharer was not “subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).