Application of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

Flynn v. Distinctive Home Care, Inc., 812 F.3d 422 (5th Cir. 2016)

Section 504 authorizes employment discrimination suits by independent contractors.

Background: After Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) in 1990, the Senate Subcommittee on Disability Policy held a hearing out of concern over potential inconsistences between the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. In response to the “need to include the philosophies embodied in the ADA in the Rehabilitation Act,” Congress added subsection (d) to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Subsection (d) incorporated by reference parts of the ADA, for example: the standards used to determine whether Section 504 has been violated in a complaint alleging employment discrimination “shall be the standards applied under title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.” Most federal circuit and district courts agree that, under Title I of the ADA, a plaintiff may sue a defendant only if the plaintiff is an employee, not an independent contractor. In Flynn, the central question was whether Section 504(d) incorporated this limitation. The district court held that it did, and thus Flynn—an independent contractor with Distinctive Healthcare staffing—could not proceed with her employment discrimination claims.

Holding: The Fifth Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court and concluded that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act authorizes employment discrimination suits by independent contractors. 

Notable Points: 

The Rehabilitation Act adopts only the substantive standards of Title I of the ADA, not the definition of who is covered under the Rehabilitation Act: The Fifth Circuit held that Section 504(d) of the Rehabilitation Act does not incorporate Title I of the ADA in its entirety. Specifically, the Rehabilitation Act uses the ADA’s standards only to determine whether the Rehabilitation Act has been violated. The Rehabilitation Act does not, however, state that the ADA standards determine whether an employer is subject to the Rehabilitation Act. The Court held that the definition of “employer” under the Rehabilitation Act is “far broader” and covers “all of the operations of covered entities, not only those related to employment.” Thus, the Rehabilitation Act adopts only the substantive standards for determining “what conduct violates the Rehabilitation Act, not the definition of who is covered” (emphasis in original).

Found in Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 1