WPC7{ P!Uzf" ߶df/DLM>b[Xp;-@$n 3 Eg8YtҍU0&j(W3 ;!_;`V)6<,i3lQVfO:Xs/Lqdi"Z‘с9~" jL]BMQ9" h yg=o5HK-u!PT&M)<;?'dՆ"~r;Z^؈s{_-?( B Oԡw interpreters,readers,andtelephonicdevices.   7,X` X,XX Xn7 `   N\Id.(emphasisadded).Theregulation'sreferenceto"qualified p  interpreters"meansthattheearlierlanguageof42.503(f)# X \XXX \#X \XX X \Ԁdoes !l"  notundercuttheplaintiffs'showingofasubstantiallikelihoodof "$ success.Thedefendantsdonotpointtoanydifferencesbetween  thecoverageofIDEAand504thatwouldbematerialhere. \   ` Therewasnoabuseofdiscretioninfindingasubstantial X likelihoodofsuccessonthemeritsunderIDEAandthe   RehabilitationAct.# X \XXX \#X \XX X \z #  10       `  3,XX X,X` X3  2.0 ` IrreparableHarm \ ` (#` (#    ` Thedistrictcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionin   determiningthat,withoutasignlanguageinterpreterandwithno d  immediateprospectsofone,Joshuawouldsufferirreparableharm. `  # X \XXX \#X \XX X \Attheevidentiaryhearingandoralargument,thedefendantsargued   thattheyintendedtocomplywiththeadministrativeorderbuthad h difficultyobtainingacertifiedsignlanguageinterpreter.# X \XXX \#X \XX X \They d suggestedthatthedenialofpreliminaryinjunctivereliefwould  notcauseirreparableharmbecauseJoshuawouldbeprovidedwithan l interpreterassoonasonebecamereadilyavailable.# X \XXX \#X \XX X \ The h defendants'argumentisatoddswithotherpositionsthattheyhave  takeninthislitigationandwiththeDepartmentofEducation's p  silencewhenJoshua'sparentsandtheMaraBas deVsquezSchool !l" raisedtheurgentneedforaninterpreterinAugust2002. "$    ` Defensecounselconcededintheevidentiaryhearingthat  theinterpreterpositionhadnotevenbeenadvertised.# X \XXX \[#X \XX X \Overtwo \ monthspassedbetweentheDepartment's# X \XXX \#X \XX X \Ԁreceivingnotice# X \XXX \3#X \XX X \Ԁofthe X problem# X \XXX \#X \XX X \ԀfromJoshua'sparents# X \XXX \#X \XX X \Ԁandthedistrictcourt'sdecisionin   thecase,andatnopointdidthedefendantsnotifyJoshuaandhis `  parentsorthedistrictcourtthattheyhadsolvedtheproblemby  \  findinganinterpreter. Whenorderedtoprovideacertified   interpreterbythedistrictcourtinNovember2002,thedefendants d  procuredonewithinten days. Thesefactsadequatelysupportthe `  conclusionthat,withoutpreliminaryinjunctiverelief,Joshua ( wouldlikelynotbeprovidedwithaninterpreterintheimmediate  future. 0 6,X ` X,XX X6  Theevidencealsosupportstheconclusionthat,without , asignlanguageinterpreterandwithnoimmediateprospectsofone,  Joshuawouldsufferirreparableharm.SeeBlackmanv.Dist.of 4 Columbia,185F.R.D.4,7(D.D.C.1999)(findingirreparableharm 0 inthatcasebecause"attherateatwhichachilddevelopsand   changes,especiallyoneattheonsetofbiologicaladolescence.. 8!" .,afewmonthscanmakeaworldofdifference"inharmtoa "4$ child'seducationaldevelopment).Notallcasesofdelayornon $& compliancewithahearingofficer'sfinalIDEAorderwill <&!( necessarilyresultinirreparableharm.Here,though,Joshuawas '8#*  destinedtospendasilent,fruitlessyearinschoolwithonlythe )$, mostremotehopesofbeingeducated.Bythetimetheinjunction  issued,onethirdofthatschoolyearhadalreadyelapsed.  \  <,XX ` X,X ` X<  3.0  BalanceofHardshipsandthePublicInterestX (# (# @,X ` X,XX ` X@  Thedistrictcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninfinding   thatthefactorsregardingthebalanceofhardshipsandthepublic `  interestfavortheplaintiffs.Thedefendantsdonotevenargue  \  thesepointsonappeal.     Weaffirmthegrantofpreliminaryinjunctiverelief. d   @(III.@@*  `  A.0  ScopeofAppellateJurisdictionOverDenialofMotionTo ( DismissonEleventhAmendmentGrounds (# (#      z  Thedefendantsmovedtodismisstheplaintiffs'damages Z claims,arguingthat,undertheEleventhAmendment,theyareimmune V fromanyandallclaimsformonetaryrelief.Importantly,for  purposesofappellatejurisdiction,thedefendantsdidnotargue ^ thatsomedamagesclaimsmaybeassertedagainstthembutnotother# X \XXX \C#X \XX X \  Z ones.6 #  11      # X \XXX \$#X \XX X \ԀThedistrictcourtdeniedthedefendants'motion.This  courthasjurisdictiontohearaninterlocutoryappealfromthat b ! denial# X \XXX \#X \XX X \.# X \XXX \#X \XX X \P.R.Aqueduct&SewerAuth.v.Metcalf&Eddy,Inc.,506  U.S.139,147(1993).# X \XXX \#X \XX X \ԀOurreviewofthisissueisplenary. \   Twoquestionsariseastothescopeofappellate X jurisdictioninthiscase.Thefirstissueiswhetherthe   defendants'summarynoticeofappealcoversthedenialofthe `  motiontodismiss." #  12      ׀# X \XXX \#X \XX X \Fed.R.App.P.3(c)requiresthatanotice  \  ofappeal"designatethejudgment,order,orpartthereofbeing   appealedfrom."Thedefendants'noticeofappealrefersonlyto d  "PreliminaryInjunctionOrder...issuedandenteredonNovember `  1,2002." Thisnoticecouldbereadasappealingonlythepartof   theNovember1ordergrantingapreliminaryinjunction. h Alternatively,itcouldbestretchedtoencompasstheentire d November1order,includingthecourt'sdenialofthemotionto  dismiss.# X \XXX \#X \XX X \Becausetheplaintiffsdidnotobjecttotheambiguityof l thenoticeandbothsidesbriefedtheEleventhAmendmentissue,we h readthenoticeofappealliberallytocoverbothpartsofthe  November1order.SeeBlockelv.J.C.PenneyCo.,337F.3d17,23 p  24(1stCir.2003). !l" _OY _ _    Thesecondissueiswhetherthiscourthasappellate  jurisdictiontoaddressthedefendants'claimthatthecomplaint \ failstostateany# X \XXX \f#X \XX X \Ԁclaimfordamagesunderanytheorybecausethe X statutesinvolvedprovidefornomorethanequitableremedies.The   defendantsurgethattheseargumentsbereachedbeforereaching `  theirEleventhAmendmentargument.Theissueisoneoffirst  \  impressionforus.Althoughthe"collateralorder"doctrineallows   thiscourttohearinterlocutoryappealsfromdenialsofmotionsto d  dismissbasedonEleventhAmendmentimmunity, #  13      ׀seeMetcalf&Eddy, `  Inc.,506U.S.at147,the# X \XXX \3#X \XX X \UnitedStates,asintervenor,argues   that,inadjudicatingthoseappeals,wemaynotaddresswhetherthe h plaintiffshavestated,underanytheory# X \XXX \8#X \XX X \,adamagesclaimagainst d whichEleventhAmendmentimmunitycanbeasserted.Mindfulthat  theSupremeCourthasnotyetdecidedthisquestion,wedisagree. l   InSwintv.ChambersCountyCommission,514U.S.35 h (1995),theSupremeCourtmadeclearthatalthoughthecourtof  appealshadcollateralorderjurisdictionoveraninterlocutory p  appealfromadenialofqualifiedimmunitytoindividualpolice !l" officers,itdidnothavependentjurisdictionovertheappealof "$ anotherparty,acountycommission,onaclaimthatthesheriffwas  notitspolicymaker.Id.at4143.TheCourtheldthatthecourt \ ofappealsdoesnothavediscretiontoexercisependent X jurisdictionwhentheotherwiseunappealableissueisnot   "inextricablyintertwined"withtheissueoncollateralorder `  appeal. #  14      # X \XXX \3#X \XX X \ԀId.at4851.TheCourtleftopenthequestionofthe  \  scopeofappellatejurisdictionwhentheissuesareinextricably   intertwined.Id.at51. d    Here,thequestionwhetheracauseofactionfordamages `  existsisinextricablyintertwinedwiththeissueofEleventh   Amendmentimmunity.UnderExparteYoung,stateofficersdonot h haveEleventhAmendmentimmunityfromclaimsforprospective d injunctiverelief.209U.S.at15556,15960.TheEleventh  Amendmentissuearisesonlyastomonetaryrelief.Sounddoctrine l supportstheexerciseofjurisdictionovertheavailabilityof h monetaryreliefaspartofourinterlocutoryjurisdictionoverpure  claimsofEleventhAmendmentimmunity.First,assertionofsuch p  jurisdictionisinkeepingwiththerulethatcourtsshouldavoid !l" decidingconstitutionalissuesifnonconstitutionalgroundsare "$ available.SeeAshwanderv.Tenn.ValleyAuth.,297U.S.288,347 t$& (1936)(Brandeis,J.,concurring);Greenless,277F.3dat60708  (applyingthisruleintheEleventhAmendmentcontext).Second, \ liketheSupremeCourt'srejectionofthedoctrineofhypothetical X jurisdiction,# X \XXX \#X \XX X \ԀSteelCo.v.CitizensforaBetterEnv't,523U.S.   83,94(1998)# X \XXX \A#X \XX X \,itavoidstheissuanceofadvisoryopinions.See `  id.at101.Third,itisinkeepingwiththerationaleofParella  \  v.RetirementBoardoftheRhodeIslandEmployees'Retirement   System,173F.3d46(1stCir.1999),whichthiscourthas d  repeatedlyendorsed.See,e.g.,RestorationPres.Masonry,Inc.v. `  GroveEur.Ltd.,325F.3d54,5960(1stCir.2003);Sealev.INS,   323F.3d150,155(1stCir.2003);Greenless,277F.3dat607. h Parellarecognizedthatcourtsshouldavoidunnecessarilyreaching d EleventhAmendmentissuesbecause,interalia,doingsocan  squanderscarcejudicialresourcesandforcedefendantstoexpend l resourceslitigatingEleventhAmendmentquestionswhennot h necessarytoresolvethecase.173F.3dat56.Thosesame  concernsapplyhere. Itisimportantthatitisthepartyclaiming p  EleventhAmendmentimmunitythatasksustodecidefirstwhether !l" anyclaimfordamagesisassertedatall. "$   TheUnitedStatesreliesonBellAtlanticPennsylvania, t$& Inc.v.PennsylvaniaPublicUtilityCommission,273F.3d337(3d  &p!( Cir.2001).Thatopiniondoesnotsupportthegovernment'sbroad '#* argument.TheThirdCircuitinBellAtlanticwasconcernedwith x)$, whether,whenhearinganinterlocutoryappealfromthedenialofa $+t&. motiontodismissbasedonqualifiedimmunity,italsohad  jurisdictionunderthecollateralorderdoctrinetohearthevery \ differentissuesofresjudicataandthestatuteoflimitations. X Id.at344.LiketheThirdCircuit,weagreethatnoteveryissue   raisedbythedenialofapretrialmotiontodismissmaybe `  reachedoncollateralorderappeal;indeed,mostmaynotbe.But  \  ourjurisdictionextendsto# X \XXX \#X \XX X \Ԁtheissuewhetherdamagesareavailable   atallbecausethatissueisinextricablyintertwinedwiththe d  issueofEleventhAmendmentimmunity,whicharisesonlyifsuch `  damagesareavailable.p #  15      ׀   6,XX X,X ` X6B.0  AvailabilityofDamagesh(#(# 3,X` X,XX X3 ` Notalloftheplaintiffs'claimscreateacauseof d actionfordamages.  3,XX X,X` X3  1.0 ` Section1983l` (#` (# 3,X` X,XX X3 ` Nocauseofactionfordamagesisstatedunder42U.S.C. h 1983againstastate,itsagency,oritsofficialsactinginan  officialcapacity.Willv.Mich.Dept.ofStatePolice,491U.S. p  58,71(1989). !l" 3,XX X,X` X3   "$   2.0 ` IDEA` (#` (# 3,X` X,XX X3 ` Weconcludethattortlikemoneydamages,asopposedto \ compensatoryequitablerelief,arenotavailableunderIDEA. X Awardsofcompensatoryeducationandequitableremediesthat   involvethepaymentofmoney,suchasreimbursementstoparentsfor `  expensesincurredonprivateeducationalservicestowhichtheir  \  childwaslaterfoundtohavebeenentitled,remainavailable,# X \XXX \<#X \XX X \Ԁ# X \XXX \#X \XX X \but   theplaintiffsherehavenotpledclaimsforsuchremedies. d   ` Thiscircuithasforeshadowedourholdingthatmoney `  damagesarenotavailableunderIDEA.Ithasnotedindicta   withoutdiscussion"thefactthatthearrayofremediesavailable h undertheIDEAdoesnotincludemoneydamages."Frazier,276F.3d d at59.Andithasheldthatdamageswerenotavailableunderthe  identicalremediallanguageoftheEducationforAllHandicapped l ChildrenAct(EHA),IDEA'spredecessorstatute.Doev.Anrig,692 h F.2d800,812(1stCir.1982).   ` OurconclusionfollowstheleadoftheSupremeCourtand p  oursistercircuits.Undertheidenticalremediallanguageofthe !l" EHA,theSupremeCourtheldthatthedistrictcourtcouldorder "$ reimbursementofprivateeducationalexpensesbecauseandthe t$& Courtwasemphaticonthispointsuchreimbursementdidnot  &p!( constitutedamages.Sch.Comm.ofBurlingtonv.Dep'tofEduc., '#* 471U.S.359,37071(1985).FollowingBurlington,mostcourts x)$, havefoundthattortlikemoneydamagesarenotavailableunder $+t&. IDEAeventhoughthestatutorylanguagedoesnotexpresslypreclude  suchdamages.j #  16      ׀Weagreewiththereasoningofthesecourtsthat \ IDEA'sprimarypurposeistoensureFAPE,nottoserveasatort X likemechanismforcompensatingpersonalinjury.See,e.g.,Polera   v.Bd.ofEduc.,288F.3d478,486(2dCir.2002). `  3,XX X,X` X3  3.0 ` Section504oftheRehabilitationActandTitleIIofthe  \  ADA 2 ` (#` (# 7,X` X,XX X7 ` Thelawremainssomewhatundevelopedastothe   availabilityofdamagesonthesepleadingsunderTitleIIand :  504.Partofthedifficultyarisesfromtheoverlappingnatureof 6 liabilityunderthesestatutesandunderIDEA.Allthreestatutes  maybeavailabletoredressparticulardenialsofafree > appropriatepubliceducation,dependingonthecontext.IDEAand : 504applysimilarstandardsforsubstantiverelief,V  #  17      ׀andalthough  TitleIIemploysdifferentwording,a #  18      ׀noneofthosedifferences  appearstobematerialonthesefacts.Giventhesimilaritiesin \ thesubstantivestandardforrelief,thequestionariseswhether X theavailabilityofdamagesshoulddifferunderthesethree   statutes. `   ` Althoughdamagesaresometimesavailableunder504and  \  TitleIIincertaincircumstances,iffederalpolicyprecludes   moneydamagesforIDEAclaims,itwouldbeoddfordamagestobe d  availableunderanothervehicle,suchas504orTitleII,where `  theunderlyingclaimisoneofviolationofIDEA.Severalcircuits   havebarredmoneydamagesunder42U.S.C.1983forIDEAbased h claimsforpreciselythisreason.  #  19      ׀Thiscircuitheldtwentyyears d agothatdamagesforthedenialofFAPEshouldnotbeavailable  under504becausetheywerenotavailableundertheEHA,IDEA's  predecessorstatute.ColinK.byJohnK.v.Schmidt,715F.2d1, \ 910(1stCir.1983).# X \XXX \#X \XX X \ԀButtheCommonwealthhasnotbriefedthis X issuetous,andwearereluctanttoresolveit.    ` Evenassumingarguendothatdamages areavailableunder `  504andTitleIIincasessuchasthis,despitebeingprecluded  \  underIDEA,thequestionalsoariseswhetherdamagesareavailable   onthefactsallegedinthesepleadings.Thecomplaintseeks d  compensatoryandpunitivedamagesforeconomicandemotionalharm `  andpainandsufferingcausedbythedenialofFAPE.     ` Punitivedamagesareclearlynotavailableoneitherthe h 504ortheTitleIIclaim.Barnesv.Gorman,536U.S.181,189 d (2002).   ` Tostateaclaimforcompensatorydamages# X \XXX \b#X \XX X \,theplaintiffs l mustcleartwohurdles.First,privateindividualsmayrecover h compensatorydamagesunder504andTitleIIonlyforintentional  discrimination.SeeAlexanderv.Sandoval,532U.S.275,28081 p  (2001).o #  20      ׀Here,theplaintiffsclearthishurdlebecausethe !l" complaint,withallreasonableinferencesdrawninitsfavor, "$ allegesintentionaldiscrimination.b #  21      ׀Thedefendantsdenythat  therewasanywrongfulintent,butatthisstage,wemustcredit \ thepleadings. X  ` Second,theplaintiffsmustshowthatthetypeofdamages   allegedareavailableascompensatorydamagesunder504andTitle `  II.TheSupremeCourthasheldthatcompensatorydamagesare  \  generallyavailableunderbothstatutes.Id.at27980;seealso   Franklinv.GwinnettCountyPub.Sch.,503U.S.60,66(1992) d  ("[W]epresumetheavailabilityofallappropriateremediesunless `  Congresshasexpresslyindicatedotherwise.").TheCourthasnot   definedthecontentof"compensatorydamages"inthiscontext. h Othercourtsaredividedoverwhethercompensatorydamagesunder d 504andTitleIIincludedamagesforemotionalharmorpainand  sufferingcausedbythedenialofFAPE.@ #  22      ׀Thiscourtheldthatsuch l damageswerenotavailablewhentherewasnoevidenceofeconomic  harmoranimustowardthedisabled,butleftopenthequestionof \ whethersuchdamagescouldbeavailableinothercircumstances. X Schultzv.YoungMen'sChristianAss'nofU.S.,139F.3d286,290   91(1stCir.1999).Itisunclearatthisstagewhethertherehas `  beeneconomicharm;plaintiffshavepledthatsuchharmexists,and  \  sincewemustcreditthatpleading,thatsufficesforpresent   purposes. d   ` Atthispoint,wecannotsaywithcertaintythata `  damagesawardunder504orTitleIIisprecludedonthese   pleadings,atleastforintentionalconductcausingeconomicharm. h Thus,weaddresstheEleventhAmendmentissue. d 3,XX X,X` X3C.0  EleventhAmendmentImmunity(#(# 7,X` X,XX X 73,XX X,X` X3  1.0 ` TitleIIoftheADAl` (#` (# 3,X` X,XX X3 ` PuertoRicoistreatedasastateforpurposesof h EleventhAmendmentimmunity.P.R.PortsAuth.v.M/VManhattan  Prince,897F.2d1,9(1stCir.1990).# X \XXX \<#X \XX X \Theissuewhetherthe  EleventhAmendmentprecludesdamagesactionsagainststates,state \ agencies,andstateofficersintheirofficialcapacitiesunder X TitleIIoftheADAispendingbeforetheSupremeCourtinLanev.   Tennessee,315F.3d680(6thCir.),cert.granted,123S.Ct.2622 `  (2003)(mem.).Accordingly,wedirectthedistrictcourttostay  \  allproceedingsastosuchADAdamagesclaims(butnotasto504   damagesclaims)untilLaneisdecided. d  3,XX X,X` X3  2.0 ` Section504oftheRehabilitationAct7,X` X,XX X%7` ` (#` (#  ` TheCommonwealtharguesthatithasnotwaivedimmunity   undertheRehabilitationAct.TitleVI,fromwhich504ofthe h RehabilitationActborrowsitsremedies,providesthat"[a]State d shallnotbeimmuneundertheEleventhAmendmentofthe  ConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesfromsuitinFederalcourtfora l violationofsection504oftheRehabilitationActof1973."42 h U.S.C.2000d7.# X \XXX \"#X \XX X \TheUnitedStateshasintervenedtoargue,inter  alia,thatunder2000d7,theCommonwealthhaswaivedany p  EleventhAmendmentimmunitythatitmayhavehadbyapplyingfor !l" andacceptingfederalfundsfortheprogramsinvolved.Weagree.# X \XXX \(#X \XX X \ "$  ` Thedefendantsrespondfirst# X \XXX \*#X \XX X \ԀthatCongresscannotseeka t$& waiverofEleventhAmendmentimmunityunder504unlessCongress  &p!( hasfirstestablishedthatithasthepowertoabrogateastate's '#* constitutionalimmunity.Theythusarguethatwemustreachthe x)$, questionofCongress'spowertoabrogate.Thedefendants'position $+t&. isillogicalandwouldrendertheentirewaiverdoctrine  irrelevant.# X \XXX \*#X \XX X \ThetwoquestionswhetherCongresshasthepowerto \ subjectPuertoRicotosuitunder504byabrogatingitsimmunity X andwhetherPuertoRicowaivedanyimmunityitmayhavehadunder   504byacceptingfederalfunds# X \XXX \,#X \XX X \Ԅareseparate.Weneednot `  addressCongress'spowertoabrogatebecausewefindthatPuerto  \  Ricowaivedanyimmunityithad.    ` PuertoRicoappearstoarguethatCongressmaynever d  requireawaiverofEleventhAmendmentimmunityasaconditionof `  federalfunding.} #  23      ׀TheSupremeCourthasflatlyrejectedthis   argument.TheCourthasrepeatedlyheldthatCongressmay h conditionthereceiptoffederalfundsonastate'srelinquishment d ofcertainimmunities.E.g.,Coll.Sav.Bankv.Fla.PrepaidPost  SecondaryEduc.ExpenseBd.,527U.S.666,686(1999)(notingthe l circumstancesunderwhichCongressmayconditiontheexerciseofan h ArticleIpoweronastate'sagreementtorelinquishEleventh  Amendmentimmunity);Aldenv.Maine,527U.S.706,755(1999) p  ("[T]heFederalGovernment[doesnot]lacktheauthorityormeans !l" toseektheStates'voluntaryconsenttoprivatesuits."); "$ AtascaderoStateHosp.v.Scanlon,473U.S.234,247(1985) t$& (indicatingthatCongressmay"conditionparticipationin...  &p!( programsfunded[bystatute]onaState'sconsenttowaiveits  constitutionalimmunity,"providedthatCongressspeakswitha \ clearvoice). X  ` PuertoRicoalsoappearstoarguethatCongress'spower   undertheSpendingClausedoesnotencompasstheabilitytorequire `  awaiverunder504.W edisagree,ashaseveryothercircuitto  \  haveconsideredthisargument.SeeA.W.v.JerseyCityPub.Schs.,   341F.3d234,24244(3dCir.2003);Lovellv.Chandler,303F.3d d  1039,1051(9thCir.2002);JimC.v.UnitedStates,235F.3d1079, `  108081(8thCir.2000)(enbanc).    ` ForthereasonswellarticulatedbytheThirdCircuitin h A.W.,341F.3dat24144,thereisnoseriouschallengeto2000d# X \XXX \.#X \XX X \Ԅ d 7undertheSpendingClause. UnderSouthDakotav.Dole,483U.S.  203(1987),SpendingClauselegislationmustsatisfyfive l requirements:(1)itmustbeinpursuitofthe"generalwelfare," h (2)conditionsoffundingmustbeimposedunambiguously,sostates  arecognizantoftheconsequencesoftheirparticipation,(3) p  conditionsmustnotbe"unrelatedtothefederalinterestin !l" particularnationalprojectsorprograms"fundedunderthe "$ challengedlegislation,(4)thelegislationmustnotbebarredby t$& otherconstitutionalprovisions,and(5)thefinancialpressure  &p!( createdbytheconditionalgrantoffederalfundsmustnotriseto '#* thelevelofcompulsion.Id.at20708,211.Thefirstandfourth x)$, requirementsareclearlysatisfiedhere,andthesecondrequirement $+t&. isaswell,forthereasonsarticulatedbelow.Astothethird  requirement,2000d7ismanifestlyrelatedtoCongress'sinterest \ indeterringfederallysupportedagenciesfromengagingin X disabilitydiscrimination.A.W.,341F.3dat24344.Astothe   fifthrequirement,Congress's# X \XXX \+8#X \XX X \requirementthatstateswaive `  immunity# X \XXX \>#X \XX X \Ԁasto504# X \XXX \>#X \XX X \inexchangeforfederalfundingisnot  \  coercive.Thewaiverisastotheparticularprogramoragency   thatreceivesfederalfunds.See29U.S.C.794(a).PuertoRico d  hasthechoiceofacceptingfederalfundingelsewhereinits `  governmentwhiledecliningfederalfundingforitsDepartmentof   Education. h  ` PuertoRicohasclearlywaiveditsEleventhAmendment d immunityunder504.Section504appliesonlytorecipientsof  federalfunding.% #  24      ׀TheDepartmentofEducationdoesnotdispute l thatitreceivedfederalfundsatallrelevanttimes.w #  25      ׀Because h wefindthatCongresshasclearlyexpresseditsintenttorequire  waiver,theCommonwealthhaswaiveditsimmunitybyaccepting \ federalfunds.SeeAreciboCmty.HealthCare,Inc.v.PuertoRico, X 270F.3d17,2425(1stCir.2001).     ` Congress'sintenttorequirewaiverisclear,asthe `  historyof2000d7'senactment# X \XXX \>#X \XX X \Ԁdemonstrates. In1985,the  \  SupremeCourtinAtascaderoStateHospitalv.Scanlon,473U.S.234   (1985),heldthat504didnotcontainaclearcongressional d  intenttorequirewaiver.Id.at247.Inresponse,Congress `  enacted2000d7.AstheCourtnotedinLanev.Pena,518U.S.   187(1996),2000d7isanunequivocalexpressionofCongress's h intentiontorequirewaiverofstates'EleventhAmendmentimmunity d asaconditionoffederalfinancialassistanceunderthe  RehabilitationAct.Id.at198. l  ` Themajorityofcircuitsthathaveaddressedtheissue h havealsoheldthat2000d7unambiguouslyrequiresstatesto  waivetheirEleventhAmendmentimmunity.SeeA.W.,341F.3d24244 p  (3dCir.2003);Nihiserv.OhioEPA,269F.3d626,628(6thCir. !l" 2001);JimC.,235F.3dat108182;Stanleyv.Litscher,213F.3d "$ 340,344(7thCir.2000);Pedersonv.La.St.Univ.,213F.3d858, t$& 87576(5thCir.2000);Sandovalv.Hagan,197F.3d484,49394  &p!( (11thCir.1999),rev'donothergrounds,532U.S.275(2001); '#*  Litmanv.GeorgeMasonUniv.,186F.3d,544,554(4thCir.1999); x)$, Clarkv.California,123F.3d1267,1271(9thCir.1997).The  Commonwealth,byacceptingfederalfunds,haswaiveditsimmunity. \   ` TheCommonwealthtriestoavoidthisresultbyarguing X thatevenafterCongresshasexpressedaclearintenttorequire   waiverandastatehasacceptedfederalfundspursuanttothat `  waiverprovision,furtherproofmayberequiredthatastate  \  knowinglyandvoluntarilywaivedimmunity.Werejectanysuch   requirement.Furtherproofisnotnecessaryunderthelawofthis d  circuit.e #  26      ׀Totheextentthatthedefendantsrelyonreasoningin `  twocasesfromtheSecondandFifthCircuits,Garciav.S.U.N.Y.   HealthSciencesCenter,280F.3d98,115&n.5(2dCir.2001);Pace h v.BogalusaCitySch.Bd.,325F.3d609,61518(5thCir.2003),we d rejectthisreasoning,ashavethreeothercircuits.SeeA.W.,341  F.3dat25054;Doev.Nebraska,345F.3d593,60104(8thCir. l 2003);Garrettv.Univ.ofAla.atBirminghamBd.ofTrs.,344F.3d  1288,129293(11thCir.2003)(percuriam). \ 3,XX X,X` X3@88) :QIV.  X 3,X` X,XX X3 ` Weaffirmthegrantofthepreliminaryinjunctionandthe   denialofEleventhAmendmentimmunityongroundsofwaiverunder |  504.Weremandthecasewithinstructionstostaytheclaimsunder ( x  TitleIIoftheADA,andforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwith $  thisopinion.Costsareawardedtotheplaintiffs.# X \XXX \D#