T.W. v. Board of Law Examiners, 996 F.3d 87

T.W., a law graduate with documented disabilities, requested the same testing accommodations for the New York bar exam that she had received in law school; the Board of Law Examiners (BOLE) granted altered accommodations, and T.W. failed the exam twice before passing on her third attempt.
T.W. sued BOLE under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, seeking declaratory, compensatory, and injunctive relief.
BOLE moved to dismiss, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity because BOLE neither directly nor indirectly received federal funds during 2013–2015.
The district court denied dismissal, concluding BOLE was a “program or activity” of the Unified Court System (UCS), which accepted federal grants, so BOLE had waived immunity under § 504.
On appeal, the Second Circuit examined three waiver paths under § 504: direct receipt, indirect receipt through intermediaries, and being part of a department/agency/instrumentality that receives federal assistance.
The Court held that federal grants (2013–2015) were allocated only to specialized lower courts within the Courts of Original Jurisdiction; the Chief Administrator merely accepted funds on those courts’ behalf, and BOLE is not an operation of the Courts of Original Jurisdiction (it is functionally aligned with the Court of Appeals), so BOLE retains immunity under § 504.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BOLE directly or indirectly received federal funds (§ 504 waiver via receipt)	BOLE was the intended recipient of federal reimbursements (NYSCB/ACCES‑VR reimburse examinees for bar fees)	BOLE never received federal funds; reimbursements are paid directly to examinees, not BOLE	No waiver—BOLE did not directly or indirectly receive federal funds
Whether BOLE is a "program or activity" of a federal‑funded entity because NYSCB/ACCES‑VR intended BOLE to benefit	Federal reimbursements make BOLE an intended beneficiary, so § 504 should apply	Mere indirect economic benefit or intended benefit without receipt does not trigger § 504	No waiver—being an indirect/intended beneficiary is insufficient
Whether BOLE waived immunity as an operation of a department/agency/instrumentality that received federal funds (i.e., UCS)	BOLE is administered and funded as part of UCS; UCS accepted federal grants, so BOLE falls within § 794(b) coverage	The relevant federal‑fund recipient unit is the Courts of Original Jurisdiction (specialty courts), not the entire UCS; BOLE is not an operation of that unit	No waiver—Courts of Original Jurisdiction are the recipients; BOLE is not an operation of that unit and remains immune

United States Dep't of Transp. v. Paralyzed Veterans of Am., 477 U.S. 597 (discusses that §504 covers recipients, not those who only indirectly benefit)
Bartlett v. N.Y. State Bd. of Law Exam'rs, 156 F.3d 321 (2d Cir.) (explains indirect receipt via vouchers can establish recipient status)
Singer v. Harris, 897 F.3d 970 (8th Cir.) (Treasurer holding funds for agencies is not a §504 recipient)
Jim C. v. United States, 235 F.3d 1079 (8th Cir.) (accepting federal funds for some departments but not others permits piecemeal immunity)
Garcia v. S.U.N.Y. Health Scis. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 280 F.3d 98 (2d Cir.) (Eleventh Amendment waiver is not absolute; recipient bears burden to show waiver)
Grove City Coll. v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555 (discusses narrow pre‑1988 interpretation of program or activity)
Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (waiver of sovereign immunity must be knowing and intentional)