Order Code RL34041
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973:
Prohibiting Discrimination Against Individuals
with Disabilities in Programs or Activities
Receiving Federal Assistance
June 13, 2007
Nancy Lee Jones
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973:
Prohibiting Discrimination Against Individuals with
Disabilities in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal
Assistance
Summary
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination against
an otherwise qualified individual with a disability solely by reason of disability in any
program or activity receiving federal financial assistance or under any program or
activity conducted by an executive agency or the U.S. Postal Service. Section 504
was the first federal civil rights law generally prohibiting discrimination against
individuals with disabilities. This report examines Section 504, its regulations, and
Supreme Court interpretations. Emphasis is placed on its differences from the ADA,
and on its relationship to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It
will be updated as necessary.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview of Section 504 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Statutory and Regulatory Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Statutory Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Selected Supreme Court Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Section 504 and the ADA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Section 504 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) . . . . . . . 8
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Section 504 and the Education of Children with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973: Prohibiting Discrimination Against
Individuals with Disabilities in Programs or
Activities Receiving Federal Assistance
Introduction
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 19731 prohibits discrimination against
an otherwise qualified individual with a disability solely by reason of disability in any
program or activity receiving federal financial assistance or under any program or
activity conducted by an executive agency or the U.S. Postal Service. Section 504
was the first federal civil rights law generally prohibiting discrimination against
individuals with disabilities.2 The concepts of Section 504 and its implementing
regulations were used in crafting the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)3 in
1990. The ADA and Section 504 are, therefore, very similar and have some
overlapping coverage but also have several important distinctions. For example,
Section 504 is limited to programs receiving federal funds or the executive agencies
and the Postal Service while the ADA broadly covers the private sector regardless of
whether federal funds are involved and does not cover the executive agencies or the
Postal Service.
1 29 U.S.C. §794. Title V of the Rehabilitation Act contains other sections relating to
disability discrimination law. Section 501, 29 U.S.C. §791, requires federal agencies to
establish affirmative action program plans for the hiring, placement, and advancement of
individuals with disabilities. Section 502, 29 U.S.C. §792, establishes the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (the Access Board), which in part provides
technical guidance regarding architectural, transportation, and communication barriers. See
[http://www.access-board.gov/]. Section 503, 29 U.S.C. §793, provides for affirmative
action in employment of individuals with disabilities in certain federal contracts. A
discussion of these provisions is beyond the scope of this report.
2 The National Council on Disability, the independent federal agency tasked with making
recommendations to the President and Congress to enhance the quality of life for all
Americans with disabilities and their families, stated: “Section 504 of the 1973
Rehabilitation Act is acknowledged as the first national civil rights law to view the
exclusion and segregation of people with disabilities as discrimination and to declare that
the Federal Government would take a central role in reversing and eliminating this
discrimination.” National Council on Disability, “Rehabilitating Section 504” (February 12,
2003), at [http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/section504.htm].
3 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. For a detailed discussion of the ADA see CRS Report 98-921,
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Statutory Language and Recent Issues, by
Nancy Lee Jones.

CRS-2
This report examines Section 504, its regulations, and Supreme Court
interpretations. Emphasis is placed on its differences from the ADA and on its
relationship to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).4
Overview of Section 504
Historical Background
Although Section 504 was the first federal statute that provided broad civil
rights protections for individuals with disabilities, there was very little discussion of
its meaning or importance during its enactment in 1973. The most detailed
discussion was during congressional debate when Senator Humphrey observed,
I am deeply gratified at the inclusion of these provisions which carry through the
intent of original bills which I introduced, jointly with the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Percy), earlier this year, S. 3044 and S. 3458, to amend, respectively, Titles
VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to guarantee the right of persons with
a mental or physical handicap to participate in programs receiving Federal
assistance, and to make discrimination in employment because of these
handicaps, and in the absence of a bona fide occupational qualification, an
unlawful employment practice. The time has come to firmly establish the right
of these Americans to dignity and self-respect as equal and contributing members
of society, and to end the virtual isolation of millions of children and adults from
society.5
The implementation of Section 504 was not performed expeditiously. The then
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW)6 published regulations in 1978
only after a federal court held that HEW was required to promulgate regulations7 and
after demonstrations at HEW offices.8 The year 1978 also saw major amendments
to Section 504.9 These amendments expanded Section 504 nondiscrimination
requirements to programs or activities conducted by executive agencies, and added
4 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. For a discussion of IDEA, see CRS Report RS22590, The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Overview and Selected Issues,
by
Richard N. Apling and Nancy Lee Jones.
5 118 CONG. REC. 32310 (September 26, 1972) (Remarks of Sen. Humphrey).
6 HEW was divided into the current Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and
the current Department of Education (ED).
7 Cherry v. Mathews, 419 F.Supp. 922 (D.D.C. 1976).
8 National Council on Disability, “Rehabilitating Section 504” (February 12, 2003), at
[http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/section504.htm].
9 P.L. 95-602.

CRS-3
a new section 50510 which applied the remedies, procedures and rights of Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 196411 to Section 504 actions.
Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
Statutory Provisions. Section 504 has been amended numerous times since
its original enactment in 1973. The core requirement of the section is found in
subsection (a). This subsection was amended by P.L. 95-602 which added the
provisions regarding the regulations. Section 504(a) currently states the following:
(a) No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as
defined in section 705(20), shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, 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 or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency
or by the United States Postal Service. The head of each such agency shall
promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the amendments
to this section made by the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and
Developmental Disabilities Act of 1978. Copies of any proposed regulation shall
be submitted to appropriate authorizing committees of Congress, and such
regulations may take effect no earlier than the thirtieth day after the date on
which such regulation is so submitted to such committees.12
Subsection (b) of Section 504 defines the term “program or activity.” This
subsection was added by P.L. 100-259 in 1988 in response to the Supreme Court’s
narrow interpretation of the phrase “program or activity” in Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972.13 The amendment clarified that discrimination is prohibited
throughout the entire institution if any part of the institution receives federal financial
assistance.14
Subsection (c) of Section 504 was also added by P.L. 100-259 in 1988. It
contains an exception for small providers so they are not required to make significant
structural alternations to their existing facilities to render them accessible if
alternative means of providing the services are available. This subsection was added
to clarify that P.L. 100-259 does not add new requirements for architectural
modification.15
Subsection (d) of Section 504 requires that the standards used to determine
whether there has been a violation of Section 504 regarding employment
10 29 U.S.C. §794a.
11 42 U.S.C. §2000d et seq.
12 29 U.S.C. §794(a).
13 Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555 (1984). See also Consolidated Rail Corp. v.
Darrone,
465 U.S. 624 (1984).
14 For a discussion of the purpose of the amendment see S.Rept. 100-64, 100th Cong., 2d
Sess. (June 5, 1987), reprinted in 1988 U.S. CODE CONG. & AD. NEWS 3 (1988).
15 Id.

CRS-4
discrimination complaints are the same as those in the Americans with Disabilities
Act. This subsection was added by P.L. 102-569 in 1992. P.L. 102-569 also
substituted the term “disability” for the term “handicap.”
Regulations. The first Section 504 regulations were promulgated by the then
department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) in January of 1978. Soon after
this, the 1978 amendments to Section 504 were passed which applied Section 504
nondiscrimination requirements to programs or activities conducted by executive
agencies, and added language requiring the promulgation of regulations. Each
executive agency and the Postal Service now has its own Section 504 regulations
which are tailored to the particular recipients of that agency’s programs. In addition,
each executive agency and the Postal Service have regulations which delineate the
coverage of Section 504 with regard to that agency’s own programs. In 1980,
President Carter issued Executive Order 12250 which provided that the Department
of Justice shall coordinate the implementation and enforcement of certain
nondiscrimination provisions, including those of Section 504.16
Selected Supreme Court Decisions
The Supreme Court has examined Section 504 in numerous contexts and, since
the enactment of the ADA in 1990, has often referenced Section 504 in its analysis
of ADA cases. The first Section 504 case to reach the Supreme Court was
Southeastern Community College v. Davis.17 In Southeastern, the plaintiff was a
student with a serious hearing disability and who sought to be trained as a registered
nurse. The college argued that she was not “otherwise qualified” as she could not
understand speech except through lipreading and that this limitation made it unsafe
for her to participate in the normal clinical program. The Supreme Court agreed with
the college, noting that it was unlikely that she “could benefit from any affirmative
action that the regulations reasonably could be interpreted as requiring.”18 The Court
concluded that
there was no violation of §504 when Southeastern concluded that respondent did
not qualify for admission to its program. Nothing in the language or history of
§504 reflects an intention to limit the freedom of an educational institution to
require reasonable physical qualifications for admission to a clinical training
program. Nor has there been any showing in this case that any action short of a
substantial change in Southeastern’s program would render unreasonable the
qualifications it imposed.19
16 Executive Order 12250 (November 2, 1980), reprinted at [http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/
byagency/eo12250.htm].
17 442 U.S. 397 (1979).
18 Id. at 409.
19 Id. at 414.

CRS-5
Similarly, in Alexander v. Choate20 the Supreme Court found no violation of
Section 504 where Medicaid recipients with disabilities claimed that a proposed 14-
day limitation on in-patient coverage had a discriminatory effect on individuals with
disabilities. The Court found that the limitation was neutral on its face as it would
provide Medicaid users with or without disabilities with “identical and effective
hospital services.”21 Section 504 did not require the state to alter its definition of the
Medicaid benefit because individuals with disabilities have greater medical needs.
Citing Southeastern, the Court observed that Section 504 requires even-handed
treatment and an opportunity for individuals with disabilities to participate and
benefit from programs receiving federal funds. “The Act does not, however,
guarantee the handicapped equal results from the provision of state Medicaid, even
assuming some measure of equality of health could be constructed.”22
Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Darrone23 raised the issue of whether an
employment discrimination action under Section 504 was limited to situations where
the primary objective of the federal financial assistance was to provide employment.
The Supreme Court held that such actions were not limited since the primary goal of
the Rehabilitation Act is to increase employment of individuals with disabilities. The
fact that Congress chose to ban such employment discrimination only by the federal
government and recipients of federal funds did not require that Section 504 be further
limited.
In Bowen v. American Hospital Association24 the Supreme Court addressed the
issue of whether Section 504 regulations requiring the provision of health care to
infants with disabilities were authorized by Section 504. This case began when the
parents of a child with Down Syndrome requested that life-saving surgery not be
performed.25 In response to the death of the child, HHS promulgated a regulation
under Section 504 stating that Section 504 required that nourishment and medically
beneficial treatment should not be withheld from infants with disabilities.26 Striking
down these regulations, the Court noted that the legislative history of the
Rehabilitation Act did not support the argument that federal officials can intervene
in treatment decisions traditionally left by state law to the parents and attending
physicians.27
School Board of Nassau County v. Arline28 examined the issue of when an
individual with a disability is “otherwise qualified” for a job if the individual has a
20 469 U.S. 297 (1985).
21 Id. at 302.
22 Id. at 304.
23 465 U.S. 624 (1984).
24 476 U.S. 610 (1986).
25 This situation is generally referred to as the “Baby Doe” case.
26 45 C.F.R. §84.55(b) (1985).
27 476 U.S. 610, 645 (1986).
28 480 U.S. 273 (1987).

CRS-6
contagious disease. Gene Arline taught elementary school until her employment was
terminated after she suffered a third relapse of tuberculosis within two years. The
Supreme Court held that an individual with a contagious disease may be a person
with a disability under Section 504 but that a person who poses a significant risk of
communicating an infectious disease to others that cannot be alleviated by reasonable
accommodation will not be otherwise qualified for a job. This should be determined
by findings of fact based on reasonable medical judgments about the nature of the
risk, the duration of the risk, the severity of the risk, and the probabilities the disease
will be transmitted and will cause harm.29
In Traynor v. Turnage30 the Supreme Court examined the application of Section
504 to an executive agency, more specifically to the Veterans’ Administration (VA).
The veterans who brought the suit had been denied an extension of the time limit for
the use of educational benefits due to disability on the ground that their alleged
disability was due to alcoholism unrelated to a psychiatric condition. VA regulations
prohibited the granting of a time extension because alcoholism unrelated to a
psychiatric condition was considered willful misconduct.31 38 U.S.C. §211(a) bars
judicial review of the Veterans’ Administrators’ decision “on any question of law or
fact under any law administered by the Veterans’ Administration providing benefits
for veterans.” The first question the Court addressed, then, was whether 38 U.S.C.
§211(a) foreclosed the Court from considering whether the VA regulation violated
Section 504. Holding that such suits were not precluded, the Supreme Court noted
that
Section 211(a) insulates from review decision of law and fact ‘under any law
administered by the Veterans’ Administration,’ that is, decisions made in
interpreting or applying a particular provision of that statute to a particular set
of facts... But the cases now before us involve the issue whether the law sought
to be administered is valid in light of a subsequent statute whose enforcement is
not the exclusive domain of the Veterans’ Administration.32
The Court then examined the second issue in Traynor: whether the regulation
was inconsistent with the requirements of Section 504. Finding that the regulation
did not violate Section 504, the Court observed, “There is nothing in the
Rehabilitation Act that requires that any benefit extended to one category of
handicapped persons also be extended to all other categories of handicapped
persons.”33 The Court also noted that “Congress is entitled to establish priorities for
the allocation of the limited resources available for veterans’ benefits, ... and thereby
to conclude that veterans who bear some responsibility for their disabilities have no
stronger claim to an extended eligibility period than do able-bodied veterans.”
29 Id. at 288.
30 485 U.S. 535 (1988).
31 28 C.F.R. §3.301(c)(2).
32 485 U.S. 535, 543-544 (1988).
33 Id. at 549.

CRS-7
The Supreme Court in Barnes v. Gorman34 held in a unanimous decision that
punitive damages may not be awarded under Section 20235 of the ADA and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Jeffrey Gorman uses a wheelchair and lacks voluntary
control over his lower torso which necessitates the use of a catheter attached to a
urine bag. He was arrested in 1992 after fighting with a bouncer at a nightclub and
during his transport to the police station suffered significant injuries due to the
manner in which he was transported. He sued the Kansas City police and was
awarded over $1 million in compensatory damages and $1.2 million in punitive
damages. The eighth circuit court of appeals upheld the award of punitive damages
but the Supreme Court reversed. Although the Court was unanimous in the result,
there were two concurring opinions, and the concurring opinion by Justice Stevens,
joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, disagreed with the reasoning used in Justice
Scalia’s opinion for the Court.
Justice Scalia observed that the remedies for violations of both Section 202 of
the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are “coextensive with the
remedies available in a private cause of action brought under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.”36 Neither Section 504 nor Title II of the ADA specifically
mention punitive damages, rather they reference the remedies of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act. Title VI is based on the congressional power under the Spending Clause37
to place conditions on grants. Justice Scalia noted that Spending Clause legislation
is “much in the nature of a contract” and, in order to be a legitimate use of this
power, the recipient must voluntarily and knowingly accept the terms of the
“contract.” “If Congress intends to impose a condition on the grant of federal
moneys, it must do so unambiguously.”38 This contract law analogy was also found
to be applicable to determining the scope of the damages remedies and, since
punitive damages are generally not found to be available for a breach of contract,
Justice Scalia found that they were not available under Title VI, Section 504, or the
ADA.

Section 504 and the ADA
The Americans with Disabilities Act was modeled on the statutory language,
regulations, and case law of Section 504. The ADA and Section 504 are, therefore,
very similar and have some overlapping coverage but also have several important
distinctions. Most significantly, Section 504 is limited to programs receiving federal
funds or the executive agencies and the Postal Service while the ADA broadly covers
the private sector regardless of whether federal funds are involved and does not cover
the executive agencies or the Postal Service.
34 536 U.S. 181 (2002).
35 42 U.S.C. §12132. Section 203, 42 U.S.C. §12133, contains the enforcement provisions.
36 42 U.S.C. §2000d et seq.
37 U.S. Const., Art. I §8, cl.1.
38 Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17 (1981).

CRS-8
There are several other distinctions between the ADA and Section 504. For
example, the ADA contains specific exemptions for religious entities.39 There are no
corresponding provisions in Section 504. Therefore, if a faith-based organization
receives federal funds, it is prohibited from discriminating against an individual with
a disability.40
Title I of the ADA prohibits employment discrimination which is also
prohibited with regard to the entities covered by Section 504. However, the
enforcement procedures for the two statutes are somewhat different. Enforcement
of Title I of the ADA parallels that of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
includes the requirement that persons alleging discrimination file a charge with the
EEOC.41 However, under Section 504 an employment discrimination complaint may
be filed with the Office of Civil Rights for the agency that provided the federal
financial assistance or the Department of Justice. Administrative procedures do not
have to be exhausted prior to filing suit in federal court.42
Section 504 and the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA)
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
IDEA43 provides federal funding for the education of children with disabilities
and requires, as a condition for the receipt of such funds, the provision of a free
appropriate public education, FAPE. Originally enacted in 1975, the act responded
to increased awareness of the need to educate children with disabilities, and to
judicial decisions requiring that states provide an education for children with
disabilities if they provided an education for children without disabilities.44 IDEA
contains a categorical definition of a child with a disability that states the following:
(3) Child with a disability —
(A) In general
The term ‘child with a disability’ means a child —
(i) with mental retardation, hearing impairments (including
deafness), speech or language impairments, visual
39 42 U.S.C. §§12113(c), 12187.
40 For a more detailed discussion of Section 504 requirements for faith-based organizations
see [http://www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/fact/faith.htm]
41 42 U.S.C. §12117(a), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5.
42 29 U.S.C. §794a, 42 U.S.C. §2000d et seq.
43 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq., P.L. 108-446. For a more detailed discussion of the provisions
of IDEA see CRS Report RS22590, “The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA): Overview and Selected Issues,” by Richard N. Apling, and Nancy Lee Jones.
44 For a more detailed discussion of the congressional intent behind the enactment of P.L.
94-142, see CRS Report 95-669, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:
Congressional Intent, by Nancy Lee Jones.

CRS-9
impairments (including blindness), serious emotional
disturbance (referred to in this title as ‘emotional
disturbance’), orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic
brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning
disabilities; and
(ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and
related services.45
In addition to the FAPE requirements, IDEA also requires that states and school
districts identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities, regardless of the
severity of their disability, to determine which children are eligible for special
education and related services. Educational agencies must create, with parental
involvement, and implement an individualized education program (IEP) for each
child with a disability. “To the maximum extent appropriate,” children with
disabilities must be educated with children who are not disabled. In addition, states
and school districts must provide procedural safeguards to children with disabilities
and their parents, including a right to a due process hearing, the right to appeal to
federal district court, and, in some cases, the right to receive attorneys’ fees.
Section 504 and the Education of Children with Disabilities
Section 504 prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities by
entities receiving federal funds. Since school systems generally receive federal
funds, they would be covered by Section 504’s nondiscrimination mandate.
Generally, the Department of Education has interpreted the Section 504 compliance
standards for schools to be the same as the requirements of IDEA.46
However, the definition of an individual with a disability under Section 504 is
a functional definition which differs from the categorical definition under IDEA. The
definition for “individual with a disability” applicable to Section 504 is “any person
who — (i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or
more of such person’s major life activities; (ii) has a record of such an impairment;
or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment.”47 IDEA, as noted previously, lists
certain conditions and then requires that the child also need special education and
related services. Thus, some children who do not qualify under IDEA may be
covered by Section 504.48
The enforcement of IDEA and Section 504 also differs. IDEA is administered
by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in the
Department of Education (ED). Section 504 is enforced by the Office for Civil
Rights (OCR) in the Department of Education (ED). OCR receives complaints from
parents, students, or advocates; provides technical assistance; and initiates reviews.
45 20 U.S.C. §1401(3).
46 34 C.F.R. Part 104, Appx. A, Subpart D.
47 29 U.S.C. §705(20)(B).
48 For a more detailed discussion of students protected by Section 504 see “Frequently
Asked Questions about Section 504 and the Education of Children with Disabilities,”
[http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html].

CRS-10
OCR has the administrative authority to enforce Section 50449 and requires that
procedural safeguards be in place that include the opportunity for an impartial
hearing.50 In addition, there is a private right of action under Section 504 so that
individuals who feel their rights have been violated may file a private lawsuit against
the school district at any time without exhausting administrative remedies. In
contrast, IDEA has detailed procedural due process requirements that in part provide
for an impartial hearing and the right of either party to appeal the hearing officer’s
decision to federal district court.51 Unlike Section 504, IDEA requires the exhaustion
of administrative remedies prior to filing suit.52
49 “Frequently Asked Questions about Section 504 and the Education of Children with
Disabilities,” [http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html].
50 34 C.F.R. §104.36.
51 20 U.S.C. §1415.
52 Id.