Cite as: 518 U. S. 187 (1996)
Stevens, J., dissenting
dress here is whether this unambiguous extension of § 504 to federal agencies was meant to waive the Government's sovereign immunity to damages liability. The answer is surely "yes." Section 504 as originally enacted was understood to create a private right of action for aggrieved individuals and to authorize a damages remedy. Congress, acting in 1978, had no reason to expect the courts to require a clearer statement respecting the remedies available against a federal defendant than those available against any other § 504 defendant. And the text of the amendment—which simply inserted the phrase extending coverage to federal agencies into the existing sentence prohibiting discrimination by federal grantees—gives no indication whatsoever that Congress intended to create a different remedial scheme for the agencies.
The Court rejects this conclusion, however, because it reads another part of the 1978 amendment, § 505(a)(2), as a limitation on the remedies available against Executive agencies under § 504. In my judgment, the Court errs by misinterpreting the language and structure of § 505 and ignoring its legislative history.
Congress' intent to strengthen the Act's protections is clearly evident in § 505. The inclusion of an attorney's fees provision in § 505(b) fortified the Act's enforcement mechanisms. This assistance to plaintiffs was necessary, according to the Senate Report accompanying the amendments, because "the rights extended to handicapped individuals under title V . . . are, and will remain, in need of constant vigilance by handicapped individuals to assure compliance . . . ." S. Rep. No. 95-890, p. 19 (1978).6
The remedies provision, § 505(a), was also meant to ensure
compliance with the 1973 Act, not to restrict remedies that Congress had made available under § 504, as the majority
6 Section 505 originated in the Senate.
205
Page: Index Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007