29 U.S.C. § 794
Rehabilitation Act § 504: disability discrimination by anyone who takes federal money
A federal claim in United States district courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
Section 504 predates the Americans with Disabilities Act by seventeen years and remains more useful than it in one specific and important way: a state that accepts federal funds waives its immunity from damages. No constitutional abrogation analysis, no Garrett problem — the waiver is a condition of the money.
What the statute gives with that hand, a 2022 decision took back with the other. Emotional-distress damages are gone.
What the claim is
A program or activity receiving federal financial assistance discriminated against you because of a disability — by excluding you, denying you benefits, or failing to accommodate.
Because federal money is everywhere, the reach is wide: public school districts, state universities, hospitals taking Medicare and Medicaid, transit authorities, housing providers, and any private entity that accepts a federal grant. Federal agencies themselves are also covered.
The overlap with the ADA is heavy, and plaintiffs routinely plead both. Where they diverge matters.
Where the right comes from
Implied, with borrowed remedies. The operative prohibition:
No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States … 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.
Courts implied a private right of action, and a companion section incorporates the remedies available under the civil-rights statute governing federally funded programs. That borrowing chain is not a technicality — it is why the damages rules below are what they are.
What a plaintiff has to prove
- A qualified individual with a disability.
- Otherwise qualified — able to meet the program's requirements with or without reasonable accommodation.
- Excluded, denied benefits, or discriminated against solely by reason of the disability.
- The program receives federal financial assistance.
Note element three. The statute says "solely by reason of," which is stricter than the ADA's "by reason of." Where a decision had mixed motives, the difference can matter, and it is a reason to plead both statutes rather than one.
For damages, intentional discrimination is required — and most circuits satisfy that through deliberate indifference rather than animus.
How long you have to file
No express federal period, and courts do not agree on what to borrow.
Most apply the forum state's personal-injury period. Some apply the four-year federal catch-all where the claim was made possible by a statute enacted after 1990. Circuits differ, and the gap between two years and four is not academic.
Do not rely on a single national number. Check the borrowing rule in your circuit.
Accrual runs from the discriminatory act, or from when the plaintiff knew of it.
What has to happen before you file
Nothing, for the ordinary claim against a funded entity. No administrative exhaustion, no charge, no notice. You may sue directly.
Two carve-outs worth knowing:
- Federal employees claiming disability discrimination in their own employment run through a different provision and do have to exhaust the federal EEO process. Same statute, different section, opposite answer.
- Students whose claim is in substance about a free appropriate public education must exhaust the special-education due process hearing first — a requirement that comes from the education statute rather than from this one, and that has narrowed considerably in recent years.
Who can be sued — and who cannot
The funded entity. Not individuals — there is no individual liability under § 504.
And here is the advantage over the ADA. A state that accepts federal financial assistance waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity for these claims by statute, as a condition of taking the money. That is a Spending Clause waiver, not a congressional abrogation, so none of the congruence-and-proportionality analysis applies.
Compare the ADA's employment title, where the Supreme Court held Congress did not validly abrogate state immunity, leaving state employees without a damages remedy. A plaintiff barred from suing a state university under that title may have a live § 504 claim on the same facts. This is the most practically valuable thing on this page.
Common defenses
Not otherwise qualified — unable to meet essential requirements even with accommodation.
Fundamental alteration or undue burden, defeating a requested accommodation.
No federal financial assistance to the program in question.
Causation — the exclusion was not solely by reason of disability.
No intentional discrimination, which defeats damages while leaving injunctive relief intact.
What the claim pays
Injunctive relief, broadly available.
Compensatory damages for intentional discrimination, plus attorney's fees.
Two categorical bars, and the second one is recent and severe:
- No punitive damages against a funded entity.
- No emotional-distress damages. In Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller (2022) the Court held that Spending Clause statutes operate like contracts — a funding recipient accepts only the liability it would have understood it was taking on — and because emotional-distress damages are not traditionally available for breach of contract, they are unavailable here. The holding covers § 504, Title VI, Title IX, and the Affordable Care Act's non-discrimination provision.
Think about what that removes. A deaf patient denied an interpreter, a student excluded from a programme, a wheelchair user turned away — in most such cases the injury is the humiliation and distress. Cummings leaves out-of-pocket loss and an injunction.
What people get wrong
"Section 504 works like the ADA." Not exactly. It uses "solely by reason of" causation, it reaches only federally funded programs — and it gets past state sovereign immunity where the ADA's employment title does not.
"I can recover for the distress this caused." Not after Cummings.
"I have to file a complaint with the agency first." Generally no, for a suit against a funded entity.
"I can sue the administrator personally." No individual liability.
"My school gets no federal money." Almost every public school district and university does, and the coverage is institution-wide.
"Students bringing education claims face a higher standard." Not since 2025 — see below.
Where it came from
Section 504 was enacted in 1973, in a single sentence, and became the model for every disability statute that followed. It was so under-noticed at passage that the implementing regulations took four years and a sit-in to produce.
Congress overrode the Supreme Court to define its scope. In 1984 the Court held in Grove City College v. Bell that "program or activity" meant only the specific department receiving funds — so a college taking federal student aid was covered in its financial aid office and nowhere else. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 reversed that directly, defining the term institution-wide. That override governs § 504 and Title IX alike, and it is why accepting any federal money exposes the whole institution.
The most recent development runs in plaintiffs' favour. In A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools (2025) the Court held unanimously that schoolchildren bringing ADA and § 504 claims arising from their education are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability contexts — rejecting a heightened "bad faith or gross misjudgment" test some circuits had applied to education cases. Deliberate indifference governs. So education damages claims are easier to plead than they were, while Cummings still caps what they can recover.
Common questions
Can I sue a state university for disability discrimination under section 504?
Yes, including for damages. By accepting federal financial assistance a state waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity for these claims. That is a real advantage over the ADA's employment title, where no such damages remedy exists against a state.
Can I recover for emotional distress?
No. Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller held emotional-distress damages are unavailable under Spending Clause statutes including § 504, on the reasoning that a funding recipient never agreed to that exposure.
Do I have to exhaust anything before suing?
Generally no for a claim against a funded entity. Federal employees claiming employment discrimination must exhaust the federal EEO process, and students whose claim is in substance about a free appropriate public education must exhaust the special-education hearing.
How is section 504 different from the ADA?
It reaches only federally funded programs, uses a stricter "solely by reason of" causation standard, and gets past state sovereign immunity where the ADA's employment title cannot. Most plaintiffs plead both.
What is the deadline?
There is no express period. Most courts borrow the state's personal-injury statute; some apply the four-year federal catch-all. The approach varies by circuit, so verify rather than assume.