Court Opinion

ID: 9472467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:00:44.468887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:56.917318
License: Public Domain

FERGUSON, Circuit Judge,
I concur in the Order, but add a statement in order to assist the district court in *686its determination of the applicability of Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 1211, 79 L.Ed.2d 516 (1984).
*685concurring:
*686The district court in its prior decision stated:
It appears that the only federal funds received by the psychology department of Arizona State University were instructional and research grants given to the individual professors. Next, it must be determined whether plaintiff has “any connection with” these federal funds.
526 F.Supp. 129, 131 (D.Ariz.1981). It appears that the district court may have been of the opinion that Meyerson himself must receive federal funds before he could state a cause of action under section 504.
The question in Grove City College was whether or not an education program or activity was receiving federal aid. In footnote 21, the Supreme Court stated, in part:
Just as employees who “work in an education program that receive[s] federal assistance,” North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, supra, [456 U.S. 512] at 540 [102 S.Ct. 1912, 72 L.Ed.2d 299 (1982)], are protected under Title IX even if their salaries are “not funded by federal money,” ibid., so also are students who participate in the College’s federally assisted financial aid program but who do not themselves receive federal funds protected against discrimination on the basis of sex.
The statute involved in Grove City College, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), contains the same language regarding a “program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” as section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.