6th Circuit Decides Section 504 Case

April 17, 2026

Important Takeaways: According to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, there is no independent right of action for a Section 504 retaliation claim. This holding creates a circuit split that the United States Supreme Court will need to address in the future. For now, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Montana, still recognizes the independent right of action.

Facts: In July 2017, Porter Smith, a corrections officer at the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), was injured while attempting to handcuff an inmate, resulting in a hip injury. Smith immediately went on medical leave. Doctors told Smith that he would need a hip replacement to resume his physical duties as a corrections officer. However, Smith chose to try less-invasive treatments, such as plasma therapy. After five months without improvement, Smith exhausted his medical leave and returned to work with medical restrictions. The restrictions included no lifting over 10 lbs, no kneeling/squatting/climbing/jumping/twisting, office-type work only, and absolutely no bending. MDOC assigned him to a transitional employment role in the Training Department to accommodate his limitations, although he remained classified as a corrections officer.

Smith’s medical restrictions were extended monthly until June 2018, and MDOC granted him an additional one-month extension through July 13, 2018, even though transitional employment assignments typically do not exceed six months. Before the extension expired, Smith submitted a formal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation request, which MDOC denied due to the exhaustion of his entitlements and a lack of vacancies that met his qualifications. After his extension expired, Smith was given options, including medical layoff or a waived rights leave of absence. Smith chose the latter, which ended his employment but preserved certain benefits for up to a year. Smith then underwent hip replacement surgery.

During his final months at MDOC, Smith was involved in a sexual harassment investigation. The sexual harassment investigation found no evidence of misconduct, but while searching through Smith’s emails, the investigator found evidence of technology misuse. While Smith was on a waived rights leave of absence, the investigator opened a computer-use inquiry regarding the emails. The investigator undertook a limited search of Smith’s work email account and found that all emails from the relevant time period had been deleted. The investigator sent a questionnaire to Smith regarding his email use. This was MDOC’s first contact with Smith regarding the computer-use investigation. Smith never returned the questionnaire. Ultimately, the investigator concluded there was not enough evidence to find a computer-use violation. However, Smith was found to have violated a work rule by failing to return a questionnaire related to the investigation, although he claimed to have returned it.

After recovering from hip surgery, Smith requested reinstatement as a corrections officer in August 2019, but his request was initially denied due to the pending disciplinary action.  However, after his deposition revealed that he apparently returned the questionnaire, MDOC extended two unconditional offers of reinstatement, which Smith declined.

In February 2020, Smith filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination and retaliation under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. At the trial court level, the discrimination claim failed on summary judgment, and the jury found in favor of MDOC on the retaliation claim. Smith then appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Court findings: On appeal, the Sixth Circuit first had to decide whether Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides a private right of action (the ability for an individual to sue under the Rehabilitation Act). For years, courts have assumed that Section 504 provided this right, but the Sixth Circuit disagreed. The court argued that the actual text of Section 504 provides no right, and courts were wrong to assume the right existed merely because the statute references the ADA, which does provide a right of action.

The relevant portion of Section 504 comes from subsection (d):

(d) Standards used in determining violation of section

The standards used to determine whether this section has been violated in a complaint alleging employment discrimination under this section shall be the standards applied under title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111 et seq.) and the provisions of sections 501 through 504, and 510, of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12201 to 12204 and 12210), as such sections relate to employment.

Smith argued that Section 504 must include a private right of action because it incorporates the ADA’s standards. However, the court disagreed because the term ‘standards’ does not refer to a private right of action. Instead, ‘standards’ actually means the test that should be applied to violations of Section 504. The applicable standard is the McDonnell Douglas test that is applied to ADA claims.

Smith then argued that the Sixth Circuit should recognize the private right of action because to do otherwise would depart from decades of judicial precedent. Again, the court disagreed. The Sixth Circuit noted that the Supreme Court has never recognized a private right of action under Section 504, and further, no circuit court has explicitly done so either. The assumption of a right has been mentioned only in dicta, which is not binding on other courts. Further, when other courts have assumed the right, there has not been a consistent rationale for it. For example, the Tenth Circuit cites the ADA as providing the right. The First Circuit instead points to other sections of the Rehabilitation Act. The lack of a clear rationale led the Sixth Circuit to hold that there is no private right of action for retaliation under Section 504.

Finally, the Sixth Circuit defended its position by turning to the central question when determining whether a statute provides a private right of action. That test turns on Congress’s intent. Further, that intent must be unambiguous. Due to the lack of textual evidence in Section 504 and the inconsistent judicial rationale for providing a right of action, the Sixth Circuit determined the intent was not unambiguous.

The Sixth Circuit dismissed the Section 504 claim after determining the statute did not provide a private right of action.

What this means: In the Sixth Circuit, individuals cannot bring a retaliation claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Smith v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 159 F.4th 1067 (6th Cir. 2025). Read it here.

Please contact Bea, Megan, Kevin, Beth, or Kali if you have any questions.