Sixth Circuit Rules Out Retaliation Claims Under Rehab Act Section 504: What Smith Means for Federally Funded Programs

Takeaways

• In Smith v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., the Sixth Circuit held that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act does not provide a private cause of action for retaliation, addressing the unsettled statutory basis for this type of claim.
• The Sixth Circuit rejected decades of multiple courts’ long-accepted assumptions that such claims exist under Section 504.
• The circuit found the statute differs fundamentally from statutes like the ADA and Title VII that create private causes of action for retaliation.

Related links

• Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973
• Smith v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr.

Article

In a significant disability law decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held 2-1 that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act does not authorize a private cause of action for retaliation. Smith v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., No. 24-1439 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025). The Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction over federal courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

Courts had long assumed that retaliation claims were actionable under the Rehabilitation Act, despite the absence of express authorization in the statutory text.

Section 504 prohibits employers who receive federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of disability status.

Background

Porter Smith, a former corrections officer, sued the Michigan Department of Corrections and the State of Michigan under Section 504 for failure to accommodate an alleged disability and retaliation. The district court dismissed the accommodation claim but allowed the retaliation claim to proceed to trial. A jury found for Michigan.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit concluded that, before it could evaluate the elements of retaliation, it first must determine whether Section 504 authorizes a retaliation cause of action at all. Finding that it does not, the court affirmed judgment for the employer.

Section 504 Differs from ADA, Title VII, Other Anti-Discrimination Statutes

The Sixth Circuit court observed that Section 504 contains no anti-retaliation language, in contrast to federal anti-discrimination statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), both of which include express retaliation provisions.

As the court emphasized, “Congress knows how to explicitly create retaliation claims” and routinely does so in other civil rights statutes.

As Section 504 is federal spending legislation, the court applied the principle that recipients of federal financial assistance must receive “clear and unambiguous notice” of the conditions for receiving these funds, including exposure to private liability.

Smith argued that the retaliation cause of action derives from Section 504(d), which incorporates certain ADA “standards,” including the ADA’s anti-retaliation provision. The Sixth Circuit rejected that argument, explaining that “standards” are not synonymous with “cause of action,” as standards refers to how courts evaluate an existing claim, not whether the claim exists in the first place. Incorporating ADA “standards,” the court wrote, does “not authorize new categories of claims such as retaliation.”

Thus, the court held Section 504(d)’s cross-reference does not supply the missing statutory authorization for a retaliation claim, and the absence of explicit text is pivotal.

Reject Long-Standing Assumption

Although the Sixth Circuit and nearly all other circuits had previously analyzed retaliation claims under the Rehabilitation Act, the court explained those decisions rested on “assumptions.” It noted “a widespread but informal acceptance of retaliation claims lacking meaningful statutory analysis.”

The Sixth Circuit held that courts may not create a cause of action “no matter how desirable that might be as a policy matter, or how compatible with the statute,” without congressional authorization.

Dissenting Opinion

Judge Rachel Bloomekatz dissented, arguing that Section 504(d)’s incorporation of ADA provisions should be read to authorize retaliation claims, as courts had consistently done for decades.

Judge Bloomekatz argued, “Protection against retaliation is essential to effective enforcement of anti-discrimination statutes ….” In her view, the direct cross-reference to the ADA gives notice and aligns Rehabilitation Act employment claims, including retaliation claims, with the ADA. The majority disagreed, concluding that such an interpretation would stretch Section 504 beyond its text.

What This Means for Employers

Although Section 504 no longer supports retaliation claims in the Sixth Circuit, private employers receiving federal financial assistance remain subject to the ADA’s explicit anti-retaliation provision.

It remains to be seen whether other circuits will follow the Sixth Circuit’s lead and take a harder look at whether Section 504 creates a cause of action for retaliation.

Employers should continue to evaluate internal policies, accommodation processes, and supervisory training to ensure compliance with federal and state disability laws.

If you have questions about compliance or retaliation claims, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss your organization’s specific needs.