Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 may not be as well known as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); however, it has also had a profound impact on the lives of disabled Americans. Seventeen states sued to end Section 504, arguing that the law is “coercive, untethered to the federal interest in disability, and unfairly retroactive.”
What does Section 504 do?
Section 504, signed into law by former President Richard Nixon, became the first major civil rights legislation to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability.
Section 504’s language is significant for its legal definition of disability: “Physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual.” This legal definition proved influential for the scope of subsequent laws safeguarding the rights of disabled Americans.
Section 504 applies to any program that receives federal funding. In 1990, with the passage of the ADA, the disability protections established in Section 504 were eventually extended to the private sector, prohibiting discrimination by private businesses. Federally funded programs may not deny disabled Americans from participating or receiving benefits, nor can they refuse access to programs or employment opportunities as a result of physical barriers.
The law has had an extensive impact on Americans with disabilities. It ensures access to accommodations in the classroom — such as extra time on tests, ASL interpreters and hearing aids — and promotes employment opportunities in federally funded programs. The law also guarantees workplace accommodations for employees and protects them from retaliation when they request them.
What is causing controversy?
In 2024, former President Joe Biden added gender dysphoria to the disability definition under Section 504 and ADA, arguing that it should be considered a physical and/or mental impairment. Gender dysphoria is the physiological distress one may feel when they do not identify with the sex they were assigned at birth.
Texas, along with 16 other states, sued Section 504, claiming that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has no constitutional power to “rewrite statutory definitions and classify ‘gender dysphoria’ as a disability.” Furthermore, the lawsuit argues that the new definition conflicts with the ADA’s original description of disability — mental or physical impairments preventing one from major life activities. The lawsuit contends that Section 504 must be eliminated because the law forces states to accommodate students with disabilities without legal justification.
Even though Texas v. Becerra was filed on July 25, 2024, the lawsuit’s true intentions — whether they aimed to strike gender dysphoria or Section 504 — remain unclear. In a joint status by 17 states released on February 19, the Attorneys General announced that they were suspending the lawsuit, claiming the reason why they sued was not to end Section 504. The joint status explained that they plan to reevaluate their position, citing President Donald Trump’s executive order directing agencies to “not promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology.”
Given the scope of Section 504, it is difficult to anticipate the ramifications should the law be eliminated. Kelly Kamish, the associate director at the RIT Disability Services Office (DSO), elaborated on why there are uncertainties.
“This was the first law that protected folks with disabilities, but it certainly was not the last. Over the past 50 years, we have seen new education, housing and employment laws go into effect that also protect folks with disabilities. Some of these are federal laws and some are state laws, but Section 504 is absolutely still important and relevant,” Kamish explained.
While Section 504 is not under threat at the moment, the lawsuit has demonstrated changing attitudes toward laws affirming the rights of Americans with disabilities.
How Does Section 504 Impact RIT?
In an online document, RIT stated that faculty members are responsible for knowing the law and providing accommodations.
“More importantly, we want to continue to do everything reasonable to assist our many talented and skilled persons with disabilities in reaching their potential,” the document noted.
The faculty must provide accommodations as mandated in a “Disability Services Agreement” sent by the DSO. The agreement established “timely and reasonable accommodations” that the student requested and DSO was able to meet.
Should Section 504 be eliminated, Kamish explained that it would change the abilities of disabled Americans to request accommodations in education and employment.
“This could mean folks with disabilities can lose their legal right to reasonable accommodations in places that receive federal funding. This would not prohibit colleges and universities from providing reasonable accommodations; it could just change the mandate to do so,” Kamish explained.
RIT is unlikely to change its policy regarding accommodations if they are no longer mandated, but it may vary for universities in other states. Kamish explained that New York State laws protect people with disabilities’ right to housing, accommodations and employment. However, if Section 504 is eliminated, RIT graduates seeking employment in a different state should research the state laws and employers’ policies.
Kamish reassured that the DSO office remains dedicated to its mission to ensure that RIT students receive the accommodations needed to thrive in their work toward a degree.
Despite being largely unfamiliar to many Americans, Section 504 is crucial to the disability rights movement. Decades of advocacy by disabled Americans to fight for their rights to be treated equally demonstrate the difficulty of making progress. However, as Texas v. Becerra shows, progress can be reversed rather quickly.
