Disability discrimination in employment; Whether there is a private cause of action for retaliation under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 USC § 794); §§ 504(a) & (d); Whether Congress intended to authorize a private cause of action; Failure to accommodate claim; Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC); Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] In an issue of first impression in the Sixth Circuit, the court held that § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act does not provide a private cause of action for retaliation. It also concluded that defendants-MDOC and State of Michigan were properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff-Smith’s claim of failure to accommodate his disability. Smith, formerly an MDOC corrections officer, sued defendants under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for failure to accommodate his disability and retaliating against him for requesting accommodation. The district court granted defendants summary judgment on the accommodation claim, and a jury found for them on the retaliation claim. On appeal, Smith challenged several aspects of the district court’s rulings. The court first considered whether § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act authorizes a private cause of action for retaliation. It reviewed two relevant provisions of the Act, §§ 504(a) and (d). The court noted that the Supreme Court has never ruled “that any provision of the Rehabilitation Act creates a private right of action for retaliation.” The Sixth Circuit has previously “‘proceed[ed] under the assumption that a cause of action for retaliation exists under § 504.” It acknowledged that several other circuits routinely accept Rehabilitation Act retaliation claims but the court focused on “the presumption against implied causes of action . . . .” The court explained that “Congress’s decision to omit a retaliation provision from the Rehabilitation Act—after it included such a provision in statutes such as the ADA, Title VII, and the ADEA—is strong evidence that it did not intend to authorize private retaliation claims under the Act.” As to Smith’s failure to accommodate claim, the court affirmed summary judgment for defendants, concluding Smith did not create “a genuine dispute as to whether he was ‘otherwise qualified’ for” the corrections officer’s position, “with or without a reasonable accommodation.” And it found that the accommodation he sought was “not reasonable.” Affirmed.