# Bennett-Nelson v. Louisiana Board of Regents

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · November 28, 2005 · 431 F.3d 448

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9414417

## Case

- **Full name:** Wendy Renee BENNETT-NELSON, Joy Marie Boykin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LOUISIANA BOARD OF REGENTS, Etc., Et Al., Defendants, Louisiana Board of Regents, Also Known as University of Louisiana System Board of Trustees, Also Known as University of Louisiana System; State of Louisiana; William Carvel Fowler, Individually; Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System, Formerly Known as Board of Trustees, Doing Business as Louisiana Tech University, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 28, 2005
- **Citations:** 431 F.3d 448; 17 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 581; 2 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) 12; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 25603; 2005 WL 3150630
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jones
- **Judges:** Jolly, Higginbotham, Jones
- **Cited by:** 143 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9414417

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the only material difference between the rights and remedies afforded plaintiffs under Title II and Section 504 lies in their' respective causation requirements, but that this difference was immaterial where the plaintiffs claims are based on a failure to make …
- explaining that “having already held that sovereign immunity does not bar the appellants’ claim under [the Reha- bilitation Act], we need not address at this juncture the issue of abrogation under Title II of the ADA, because the rights and remedies under either are the same f…
- holding that the court need not address the issue of abrogation under Title II of the ADA because the Rehabilitation Act claim was not barred by sovereign immunity and afforded the same rights and remedies
- explaining that the only material difference between Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act lies in them respective causation requirements
- explaining that a § 504 claim requires that the discrimination be “solely by reason” of the disability, whereas an ADA claim does not require the same

## Opinion text

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the judgment and in the majority’s opinion. In my view, it would have been appropriate to decide whether Tennessee v. Lane extends Congress’s permissible abrogation of state sovereign immunity in ADA Title II beyond its precise purview, i.e., the fundamental right of access to the courts, and into the field of education. Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533-34 , 124 S.Ct. 1978 , 158 L.Ed.2d 820 (2004). See Pace v. Bogalusa ISD, 403 *456 F.3d 272 , 303 (5th Cir.2005)(Jones, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9414417. Public record. Not legal advice.