Porter Smith v. MDOC -Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
In a precedential opinion, the Sixth Circuit held that § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act does not itself create a private right of action for retaliation, concluding that the statute’s cross-reference to the ADA imports only adjudicatory standards, not new claims. Because no retaliation cause of action exists, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment against Porter Smith and also affirmed summary judgment on his failure-to-accommodate claim.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides a private cause of action for retaliation against employees who oppose disability discrimination or request accommodations.
Circuit Positions
§ 504 authorizes a private cause of action for retaliation, imported through § 504(d)’s incorporation of ADA § 12203.
§ 504 contains no private cause of action for retaliation; the ADA’s retaliation provision does not apply.
Conflict Summary
The Sixth Circuit held that § 504 does not itself create a private retaliation claim, rejecting decades of precedent from other circuits that recognize such a cause of action by reading § 504(d) to incorporate the ADA’s anti-retaliation provision. Thus, other circuits permit Rehabilitation Act retaliation suits, while the Sixth Circuit now bars them absent explicit statutory language.