Porter Smith v. Michigan Department of Corrections, et al.

This case presents a square and acknowledged conflict over an exceptionally important question under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In the proceedings below, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit held that the Rehabilitation Act does not authorize retaliation claims, despite the Act’s direct incorporation of the ADA’s express anti-retaliation provision. In so holding, the 2-1 majority expressly departed from the contrary national consensus that has existed in every other circuit for decades. This novel statutory holding was the sole basis of the majority’s decision, and it leaves the Act’s essential protections in disarray: anti-retaliation safeguards are a common and essential component of federal anti-discrimination schemes, and the decision below disrupts the Act’s uniform operation across hundreds (if not thousands) of cases. The question presented is: Whether Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794, authorizes a private right of action for retaliation. (I)