Bowers v. Natl Collegiate , 346 F.3d 402 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2003 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    8-20-2003
    Bowers v. Natl Collegiate
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential
    Docket No. 02-3236P
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
    Recommended Citation
    "Bowers v. Natl Collegiate" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 291.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/291
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    PRECEDENTIAL
    Filed August 20, 2003
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    Nos. 02-3236, 01-4226, 01-4492, 02-1789
    MICHAEL BOWERS
    v.
    THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
    ASSOCIATION, as an Association
    and a Representative of its Member
    Schools a/k/a NCAA; THE NCAA INITIAL-
    ELIGIBILITY CLEARINGHOUSE; CEDRIC W. DEMPSEY,
    Executive Director of the NCAA, in his individual
    and official capacities; CALVIN SYMONS, Managing
    Director of the NCAA Student-Eligibility Clearinghouse,
    in his individual and official capacities; TEMPLE
    UNIVERSITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF
    HIGHER EDUCATION; ACT INC; UNIVERSITY OF IOWA;
    AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE;
    THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
    Intervenor-Defendant in District Court
    TEMPLE UNIVERSITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH
    SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
    Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff
    v.
    DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY;
    THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS;
    UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST,
    Third-Party Defendants
    2
    University of Massachusetts Amherst
    and Delaware State University,
    Appellants in 02-3236
    *KATHLEEN BOWERS, administratrix ad
    prosequendum of the Estate of
    Michael Bowers
    v.
    THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
    ASSOCIATION, as an Association
    and a Representative of its Member
    Schools a/k/a NCAA; THE NCAA INITIAL-
    ELIGIBILITY CLEARINGHOUSE;
    CEDRIC W. DEMPSEY, Executive Director
    of the NCAA, in his individual and
    official capacities; CALVIN SYMONS,
    Managing Director of the NCAA Student-
    Eligibility Clearinghouse, in his
    individual and official capacities;
    TEMPLE UNIVERSITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH
    SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION; ACT, INC.;
    UNIVERSITY OF IOWA; AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL
    COLLEGE
    THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
    Intervenor-Defendant in District Court
    TEMPLE UNIVERSITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH
    SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
    Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff
    v.
    3
    DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY;
    THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS;
    UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST,
    Third-Party Defendants
    The University of Memphis,
    Appellant in No. 01-4226
    *(Amended Per Clerk’s Order of 11/6/02)
    *KATHLEEN BOWERS, administratrix ad
    prosequendum of the Estate of
    Michael Bowers
    v.
    NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, as an
    Association and a Representative of its Member Schools
    a/k/a NCAA; THE NCAA INITIAL-ELIGIBILITY
    CLEARINGHOUSE; CEDRIC W. DEMPSEY, Executive
    Director of the NCAA, in his individual and official
    capacities; CALVIN SYMONS, Managing Director of the
    NCAA Student-Eligibility Clearinghouse, in his individual
    and official capacities; TEMPLE UNIVERSITY OF THE
    COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION;
    ACT, INC.; UNIVERSITY OF IOWA; AMERICAN
    INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE;
    THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
    Intervenor-Defendant in District Court
    TEMPLE UNIVERSITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH
    SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
    Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff
    v.
    4
    DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY;
    THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS;
    UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST,
    Third-Party Defendants
    University of Iowa,
    Appellant in No. 01-4492
    *(Amended Per Clerk’s Order of 11/6/02)
    *KATHLEEN BOWERS, administratrix ad
    prosequendum of the Estate of
    Michael Bowers
    v.
    NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, as an
    Association and a Representative of its Member Schools
    a/k/a NCAA; THE NCAA INITIAL-ELIGIBILITY
    CLEARINGHOUSE; CEDRIC W. DEMPSEY, Executive
    Director of the NCAA, in his individual and official
    capacities; CALVIN SYMONS, Managing Director of the
    NCAA Student-Eligibility Clearinghouse, in his individual
    and official capacities; TEMPLE UNIVERSITY OF THE
    COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION;
    ACT, INC.; UNIVERSITY OF IOWA; AMERICAN
    INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE;
    THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
    Intervenor-Defendant in District Court
    TEMPLE UNIVERSITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH
    SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
    Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff
    v.
    5
    DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY;
    THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS;
    UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST,
    Third-Party Defendants
    The University of Massachusetts,
    Appellant in No. 02-1789
    *(Amended Per Clerk’s Order of 11/6/02)
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of New Jersey
    (D.C. Civ. No. 97-cv-02600)
    Honorable Stephen M. Orlofsky, District Judge
    Argued July 8, 2003
    BEFORE: NYGAARD, SMITH, and GREENBERG,
    Circuit Judges
    (Filed: August 20, 2003)
    Richard L. Bazelon (argued)
    Bazelon, Less & Feldman
    1515 Market Street
    7th Floor
    Philadelphia, PA 19102
    Barbara E. Ransom
    Public Interest Law Center
    of Philadelphia
    125 South 9th Street
    Suite 700
    Philadelphia, PA 19107
    Attorneys for Appellees Michael
    Bowers and Kathleen Bowers,
    administratrix ad prosequendum of
    the Estate of Michael Bowers
    6
    Shannon D. Farmer (argued)
    Abigail L. Flitter, Esq.
    John B. Langel, Esq.
    Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll
    1735 Market Street
    51st Floor
    Philadelphia, PA 19103
    Attorneys for Appellee Temple
    University
    Jack J. Wind
    Margulies, Wind, Herrington,
    & Knopf
    15 Exchange Place, Suite 510
    Jersey City, NJ 07302
    Thomas S. Miller
    Attorney General
    Gordon E. Allen (argued)
    Deputy Attorney General
    1305 East Walnut Street
    Hoover State Office Building,
    2nd Floor
    Des Moines, IA 50319
    Attorneys for Appellant University
    of Iowa
    Andrea M. Silkowitz
    Office of Attorney General of
    New Jersey
    Division of Law
    124 Halsey Street
    P.O. Box 45029
    Newark, NJ 07102
    Attorney for State of New Jersey
    7
    Ralph F. Boyd, Jr.
    Assistant Attorney General
    Seth M. Galanter
    Sarah E. Harrington (argued)
    United States Department of Justice
    Civil Rights Division
    Appellate Section
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20530
    Attorneys for Intervenor United
    States of America
    Michael K. Willison
    Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote
    One Greentree Centre
    Suite 201
    Marlton, NJ 08053-3105
    Attorneys for Appellant Delaware
    State University
    Peter L. Frattarelli
    Archer & Greiner
    One Centennial Square
    P.O. Box 3000
    Haddonfield, NJ 08033
    Kae Carpenter Todd
    Mary M. Collier (argued)
    Assistant Attorney General
    Civil Litigation and State
    Services Division
    Office of the Attorney General
    of Tennessee
    P.O. Box 20207
    Nashville, TN 37202
    Attorneys for Appellant University
    of Memphis
    8
    Linda B. Celauro (argued)
    John J. Peirano
    Gary S. Prish
    Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey
    100 Mulberry Street
    Three Gateway Center
    Newark, NJ 07102
    Attorneys for Appellant University
    of Massachusetts
    Thomas C. Hart
    Ruprecht, Hart & Weeks
    306 Main Street
    Millburn, NJ 07041
    Attorneys for American
    International College
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.
    I.   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    This matter comes on before this court on appeals by the
    University of Iowa (“Iowa”), Delaware State University
    (“Delaware State”), the University of Massachusetts
    (“UMass”), and the University of Memphis (“Memphis”) in
    an action Michael Bowers brought under Title II of the
    Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and section 504 of
    the Rehabilitation Act as well as under the New Jersey Law
    Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”). Among the appellants,
    however, Bowers sued only Iowa although he also sued
    Temple University (“Temple”), which is an appellee and is
    participating in this appeal, and certain other parties that
    have been dismissed from the action or are not
    participating in the appeal. During the course of the
    proceedings, Michael Bowers has died leading to his mother
    Kathleen Bowers being substituted for him. Nevertheless,
    as the parties have done in their briefs, as a matter of
    convenience we will treat him as the sole appellant in this
    opinion referring to him as “Bowers”.
    9
    In determining this matter, we accept as true the facts
    Bowers alleged in his complaint, as amended, and the facts
    Temple alleged in its third-party complaint against
    Memphis, UMass, and Delaware State. Inasmuch as the
    history of this case is long and complicated, we set forth
    only the portions necessary for resolution of the appeal.
    The case may be said to have its origin in the
    circumstances that Bowers played football in high school in
    New Jersey and was interested in obtaining an athletic
    scholarship at a National Collegiate Athletic Association
    (“NCAA”) Division I or II school. The NCAA is an
    unincorporated voluntary association of more than 1000
    members, a majority of which are public and private four-
    year colleges. See Cureton v. NCAA, 
    198 F.3d 107
    , 110 (3d
    Cir. 1999). In fact, the universities involved on this appeal
    are NCAA members.
    Bowers suffered from a diagnosed learning disability that
    prevented him from taking several of the secondary school
    courses the NCAA considers to be core requirements for
    athletic eligibility and for the award of an athletic
    scholarship. The complaint and third-party complaint allege
    that the five universities we have mentioned, i.e., Temple,
    Iowa, Delaware State, UMass, and Memphis, recruited
    Bowers for their football programs but that the NCAA
    Clearinghouse, which determines whether student-athlete
    prospects meet required education guidelines, determined
    that he did not meet the requirement that a student take
    13 core courses in his secondary school. In 1996, after the
    universities learned of Bowers’s status, they ceased
    recruiting him.1
    On May 23, 1997, Bowers filed a complaint alleging that
    the NCAA, the NCAA Initial Eligibility Clearinghouse, and a
    number of individual defendants violated, inter alia, the
    ADA and the Rehabilitation Act in their treatment of him.
    After the district court denied Bowers’s motion for
    preliminary injunctive relief, Bowers v. NCAA, 
    974 F. Supp. 459
    , 467 (D.N.J. 1997), he amended his complaint to join
    Temple, Iowa, and American International College as
    1. Temple accepted Bowers as a regular admission student, but
    restricted his access to its athletic facilities.
    10
    defendants and to add state law claims under the NJLAD.
    The district court subsequently granted summary judgment
    in favor of the Clearinghouse and granted in part and
    denied in part the motions for summary judgment filed by
    the NCAA, Temple, Iowa, and American International
    College.2 Bowers v. NCAA, 
    9 F. Supp. 2d 460
     (D.N.J. 1998).
    Following the district court’s disposition of subsequent
    motions for summary judgment in Bowers v. NCAA, 
    118 F. Supp. 2d 494
     (D.N.J. 2000), Temple filed a third-party
    complaint on November 21, 2000, seeking contribution for
    any monetary liability it might have to Bowers from
    Delaware State, UMass, and Memphis. These three
    universities had not been parties to this litigation and
    Bowers has not sued any of them.
    Subsequently, Bowers moved to add claims against Iowa
    and on July 3, 2001, the district court granted that motion.
    Bowers v. NCAA, Civ. No. 97-2600, 
    2001 WL 1772801
    , at
    *10 (D.N.J. July 3, 2001). In its opinion, in response to
    Iowa’s contention that the amendment would be futile as it
    was immune from suit, the court held that Iowa was not an
    arm of the State of Iowa for Eleventh Amendment purposes
    and thus it was not immune. Id. at * 9. Iowa did not appeal
    from that order at that time.
    All three third-party defendants moved to dismiss the
    third-party complaint, arguing that neither Title II nor
    section 504 contemplates an award for contribution and
    further arguing, in the cases of Memphis and Delaware
    State, that the Eleventh Amendment applied to them and
    barred Temple’s action against them as the provisions for
    abrogation and waiver of immunity in the two statutes were
    unconstitutional. The district court, on November 7, 2001,
    granted in part and denied in part Memphis’s motion,
    holding that Memphis was an arm of the State of Tennessee
    for Eleventh Amendment purposes, Temple’s contribution
    claim under the NJLAD against Memphis was barred by the
    doctrine of sovereign immunity, there is a right of
    contribution under Title II of the ADA and section 504 of
    2. A consent agreement and order dismissing the action without
    prejudice as to American International College was filed on December 3,
    2001.
    11
    the Rehabilitation Act, Congress validly abrogated
    Memphis’s Eleventh Amendment immunity under Title II of
    the ADA, and Memphis waived its Eleventh Amendment
    immunity under the Rehabilitation Act by accepting federal
    funds. Bowers v. NCAA, 
    171 F. Supp. 2d 389
    , 397-409
    (D.N.J. 2001).
    The district court denied with prejudice Delaware State’s
    motion to dismiss Temple’s claims for contribution under
    Title II and section 504 as, unlike Memphis with respect to
    the State of Tennessee, it did not come forward with
    evidence demonstrating its relationship to the State of
    Delaware. 
    Id. at 399
    . The court, however, did not make
    other dispositive rulings on the Eleventh Amendment
    issues, though it did invite UMass and Delaware State to
    submit additional briefing on these issues and granted
    Temple an opportunity to reply to this briefing.3 
    Id. at 409
    .
    Memphis filed a notice of appeal from the November 7,
    2001 order on November 21, 2001, and Iowa filed a notice
    of appeal from the July 3, 2001 order on December 21,
    2001.
    On November 21, 2001, UMass filed a motion pursuant
    to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
    (b) for a prescribed statement with
    respect to the district court’s ruling that there is a right of
    contribution under Title II and section 504 of the
    Rehabilitation Act. Delaware State joined in that motion but
    Memphis did not. On December 7, 2001, UMass filed
    supplemental papers in support of its motion to dismiss,
    addressing the Eleventh Amendment issues, but Delaware
    State did not file any similar additional papers. On March
    6, 2002, the district court granted the motions of UMass
    and Delaware State for a certified order pursuant to 28
    3. The court allowed the additional briefing so that UMass and Delaware
    State could demonstrate their relationships to their respective states to
    determine whether they were entitled to sovereign immunity on Temple’s
    claim for contribution on the NJLAD claim. Bowers, 
    171 F. Supp. 2d at 409
    . We are not clear as to why in view of its denial of Delaware State’s
    motion for dismissal predicated on sovereign immunity on the Title II
    and section 504 claims by reason of its failure to demonstrate that it was
    entitled to the benefit of the Eleventh Amendment as an arm of the State
    of Delaware, the court allowed it to file the supplemental brief on the
    NJLAD claim.
    
    12 U.S.C. § 1292
    (b) with respect to the contribution issues. It
    also found that UMass was an arm of the State of
    Massachusetts for Eleventh Amendment purposes, but
    consistently with its order with respect to Memphis, denied
    UMass’s motion to dismiss Temple’s claims against it under
    section 504 and Title II and dismissed Temple’s claims
    against it under the NJLAD. It also dismissed Temple’s
    claim for contribution under the NJLAD against Delaware
    State as it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1367
     over that claim. Bowers v. NCAA,
    
    188 F. Supp. 2d 473
    , 481-82 (D.N.J. 2002). These
    dispositions left Temple’s claim for contribution under Title
    II and section 504 alive against all three third-party
    defendants but eliminated the NJLAD contribution claim
    from the third-party complaint. The court, however, stayed
    all proceedings related to the third-party complaint pending
    resolution of Memphis’s appeal. 
    Id. at 483
    .4
    Iowa now appeals at No. 01-4492 from the district court’s
    order reflecting its finding that it is not an arm of the State
    of Iowa for Eleventh Amendment purposes and Iowa,
    Memphis at No. 01-4226, and UMass at No. 02-1789,
    appeal from the district court’s orders reflecting its
    Eleventh Amendment determinations with respect to the
    abrogation of and waiver of sovereign immunity. Delaware
    State did appeal from the district court’s order denying its
    motion to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds but it
    has dismissed that appeal voluntarily. With our permission
    UMass and Delaware State appeal at No. 02-3236 from the
    district court’s orders of November 7, 2001, and March 6,
    2002, reflecting its conclusion that there is a right to
    contribution under Title II of the ADA and section 504 of
    the Rehabilitation Act. On March 19, 2002, the United
    States filed a notice of intervention pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2403
    (a), advising that it was intervening to argue that
    Congress validly abrogated the states’ Eleventh Amendment
    immunity under Title II and that states accepting federal
    funds waived that immunity under the Rehabilitation Act.
    Thus, the appeals raise significant issues with respect to
    4. This opinion was the ninth the district court had issued in this case.
    See Bowers, 
    188 F. Supp. 2d at 477
    . We do not doubt that there will be
    more.
    13
    Iowa’s status under the Eleventh Amendment, the
    abrogation and waiver of the states’ Eleventh Amendment
    immunity by and pursuant to the ADA and the
    Rehabilitation Act, and whether there can be a right of
    contribution under those acts. Preliminarily, however, we
    address procedural and jurisdictional matters with respect
    to Iowa and Memphis.
    II.   JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
    Subject to the timeliness issue with respect to Iowa’s
    appeal, we have jurisdiction over the orders denying the
    appellants Eleventh Amendment immunity under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     as those orders are final for purposes of appeal
    under the collateral order doctrine. See Puerto Rico
    Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 
    506 U.S. 139
    , 144, 
    113 S.Ct. 684
    , 687 (1993). We have jurisdiction
    with respect to the contribution issues under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
    (b). Inasmuch as we are deciding this appeal by
    resolving questions of law, we are exercising de novo review.
    See Lavia v. Pa. Dep’t of Corrs., 
    224 F.3d 190
    , 194-95 (3d
    Cir. 2000).
    III.   DISCUSSION
    A.     TIMELINESS OF IOWA’S APPEAL
    We first discuss the timeliness of Iowa’s appeal. On
    December 21, 2001, Iowa filed a notice of appeal stating
    that it appealed “from the following portions of the Orders
    and Memoranda of the District Court entered on July 3,
    2001 . . . .” Iowa App. at 30. Bowers has moved to dismiss
    the appeal as being untimely.5 Clearly, Iowa filed this notice
    5. The court docketed Iowa’s appeal at No. 01-4492. Nevertheless, when
    Iowa filed its brief it bore the number 01-4226, which was the number
    the court assigned to Memphis’s appeal. Moreover, the cover of the brief
    recited that the appeal was from the order of November 7, 2001. Of
    course, that was not correct as Iowa’s notice of appeal recited that the
    appeal was from the order of July 3, 2001, and Iowa was not a party to
    the November 7, 2001 order. Iowa’s procedure with respect to this brief
    caused Bowers on April 23, 2002, to file a second motion to dismiss the
    appeal at No. 01-4492. Though we are dismissing Iowa’s appeal we are
    denying Bowers’s April 23, 2002 motion because it is not necessary and,
    in any event, we would not dismiss an appeal merely because the brief
    on the appeal carried the wrong docket number and its cover incorrectly
    recited the date of the order being appealed.
    14
    after the 30-day deadline prescribed by Fed. R. App. P.
    4(a)(1). Iowa appears to recognize that, under Torres v.
    Oakland Scavenger Co., 
    487 U.S. 312
    , 
    108 S.Ct. 2405
    (1988), this time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional, and
    thus ordinarily its appeal would be untimely. See Iowa Br.
    at 9. It nevertheless argues that we may and should
    entertain its appeal because the interests of justice and
    judicial economy dictate that we consider its appeal
    together with the timely appeal of Memphis which also
    raises Eleventh Amendment issues.
    Memphis filed its notice of appeal on November 21, 2001,
    appealing from the district court’s November 7, 2001 order
    but Iowa was not a party to that order. Iowa, however, did
    file its appeal 30 days after Memphis filed its appeal. Fed.
    R. App. P. 4(a)(3) provides: “If one party timely files a notice
    of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal within
    14 days after the date when the first notice was filed . . . .”
    Iowa argues that even though it did not file its appeal
    within the Rule 4(a)(3) 14-day time limit that rule is a
    nonmandatory rule of practice so that its late filing date
    does not require us to dismiss its appeal. Iowa Br. at 10.
    Although not expressly using the term in its brief, it in
    effect argues that we may consider its appeal under our
    “pendent” appellate jurisdiction as it contends that
    Memphis’s notice of appeal “establishes the jurisdiction of
    the Circuit over the entire case . . . .” 
    Id.
     Thus, it seeks to
    tie its appeal to that of Memphis for jurisdictional purposes.
    Bowers, on the other hand, argues that Rule 4(a)(3)’s time
    limit is mandatory and that our pendent jurisdiction cannot
    reach so far as to encompass Iowa’s appeal.6 Bowers Br. at
    24.
    6. We are assuming without deciding that if Iowa had appealed from the
    July 3, 2001 order within the 14-day period measured from November 7,
    2001, its appeal would have been timely. We also are assuming without
    deciding that the July 3, 2001 order was final and appealable under the
    collateral order doctrine even though it arose in the context of the
    granting of a motion to amend rather than the denial of a motion to
    dismiss or for summary judgment, the usual context in which collateral
    order appeals are taken. We may make these assumptions as we are, in
    any event, dismissing the appeal.
    15
    In Torres, the Supreme Court held that omission of one
    litigant’s name in a notice of appeal filed by 15 other
    appellants required a conclusion that that party had not
    appealed. The Court stated that “the mandatory nature of
    the time limits contained in Rule 4 would be vitiated if
    courts of appeals were permitted to exercise jurisdiction
    over parties not named in the notice of appeal.” Torres, 
    487 U.S. at 315
    , 
    108 S.Ct. at 2407-08
    . The Court quoted the
    Advisory Committee Note following Rule 3, which states:
    “Rule 3 and Rule 4 combine to require that a notice of
    appeal be filed with the clerk of the district court within the
    time prescribed for taking an appeal. Because the timely
    filing of a notice of appeal is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional,’
    [citation omitted] compliance with the provisions of those
    rules is of the utmost importance.” 
    Id.,
     
    108 S.Ct. at 2408
    .
    The Court also stated that, although a court may construe
    the rules liberally in determining the sufficiency of a party’s
    compliance with them, “it may not waive the jurisdictional
    requirements of Rules 3 and 4, even for ‘good cause shown’
    under Rule 2, if it finds that they have not been met.” 
    Id. at 317
    , 
    108 S.Ct. at 2409
    .
    Nonetheless, in United States v. Tabor Court Realty Corp.,
    
    943 F.2d 335
    , 344 (3d Cir. 1991), we held that,
    notwithstanding the broad language of Torres, Rule 4(a)(3)
    is best considered a rule of practice so that compliance with
    it is not a jurisdictional prerequisite. We further held that
    “in some cases, the rights of the parties are so closely tied
    together that an appellate court can render no judgment
    that would be just without affecting the rights of the parties
    who did not file notices of appeal.” 
    Id.
     Yet, subsequently, in
    EF Operating Corp. v. American Buildings, 
    993 F.2d 1046
    ,
    1049 n.1 (3d Cir. 1993), we noted that the broad language
    of Torres overruled several of our precedents that had held
    that rules like Rule 4(a)(3) were rules of practice. Without
    citing Tabor Court, we stated that “there is no reason to
    believe that the specific time requirement of Rule 4(a)(3) is
    not jurisdictional.” 
    Id.
    Bowers urges us to consider Tabor Court to be a pendent
    appellate jurisdiction case, the holding of which does not
    withstand the Supreme Court’s recent narrow view of that
    doctrine in Swint v. Chambers County Commission, 514
    
    16 U.S. 35
    , 
    115 S.Ct. 1203
     (1995). We recently have observed
    that our discretionary, though narrow, exercise of pendent
    appellate jurisdiction after Swint has been limited to two
    circumstances: “inextricably intertwined orders or review of
    the non-appealable order where it is necessary to ensure
    meaningful review of the appealable order.” E.I. DuPont de
    Nemours & Co. v. Rhone Poulenc Fiber & Resin
    Intermediates, S.A.S., 
    269 F.3d 187
    , 203 (3d Cir. 2001).
    Here, however, we have no need to reconcile our
    precedents. Indisputably, considering the July 3, 2001
    order by itself Iowa failed to file a timely appeal. Of course,
    it was that order that determined that Iowa was not an arm
    of the State of Iowa for Eleventh Amendment purposes and
    thus was not entitled to sovereign immunity under the
    amendment. In the November 7, 2001 order, by contrast,
    the district court did not make any determinations with
    respect to Iowa. Moreover, in contrast to its conclusion with
    respect to the relationship of Iowa to its state, it held that
    Memphis was an arm of the State of Tennessee for
    Eleventh Amendment purposes, but that Congress validly
    had abrogated the states’ immunity under that amendment
    in Title II and the State of Tennessee had waived that
    immunity pursuant to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
    by reason of Memphis having accepted federal funds. Thus,
    Iowa’s argument fails under even the most liberal of the
    standards enunciated in Tabor Court for, as we set forth
    above, the principles of that case apply only where “the
    rights of the parties are so closely tied together that an
    appellate court can render no judgment that would be just
    without affecting the rights of the parties who did not file
    notices of appeal.”
    Moreover, DuPont suggests that the exercise of pendent
    appellate jurisdiction requires, at the very least, that the
    orders from which the appeals are taken be “inextricably
    intertwined.”7 The July 3 and November 7 orders are not
    7. The Supreme Court’s decision in Swint suggests that a court should
    exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction with particular restraint where an
    appellant invokes pendent-party rather than pendent-issue jurisdiction.
    See Charles A. Wright et al., 16 Federal Practice and Procedure 2d
    § 3937, at 696-97 (2d ed. 1996 & Supp. 2003).
    17
    “tied together” or “inextricably intertwined.” Our resolution
    of the Eleventh Amendment questions posed by Memphis’s
    appeal would not be material to the decision that Iowa is
    not an arm of the State of Iowa for Eleventh Amendment
    purposes and a ruling with respect to Iowa’s status under
    the Eleventh Amendment would be independent of our
    determinations with respect to Memphis. Accordingly, we
    will dismiss Iowa’s appeal at No. 01-4492 because it was
    not timely filed, and do not consider whether Iowa is an
    arm of the State of Iowa for Eleventh Amendment purposes.8
    B.   THE STATUS OF MEMPHIS ON THIS APPEAL
    Temple urges that we should dismiss Memphis’s appeal
    for the following reasons. On November 6, 2002, Temple
    filed in the district court a notice of dismissal without
    prejudice of its third-party complaint against Memphis
    pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) which provides in
    pertinent part, with inapplicable exceptions, that “an action
    may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court . . .
    by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by
    the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary
    judgment, whichever first occurs . . . .” Memphis
    acknowledged at oral argument before us that the rule is
    applicable to third-party complaints (a point with which we
    agree) and that prior to November 6, 2002, notwithstanding
    its extensive participation in this case, it had not filed an
    answer or a motion for summary judgment.9 Thus, the
    8. We realize that depending on the future course of this litigation we
    may have to entertain Iowa’s Eleventh Amendment arguments following
    final judgment. Accordingly, there is much to be said in favor of
    considering them now and possibly saving the parties and the district
    court from engaging in what may prove, at least in part, to be
    unnecessary proceedings. Indeed, Iowa makes this very point. Iowa Br.
    at 14. Nevertheless, a court of appeals cannot create jurisdiction on a
    theory that it would be convenient to do so. In determining to dismiss
    Iowa’s appeal we have not overlooked the circumstances that we are
    dismissing Memphis’s appeal. Rather, we find it unnecessary to consider
    whether the dismissal of Memphis’s appeal would have eliminated
    jurisdiction over Iowa’s appeal as we have not had such jurisdiction in
    the first place.
    9. The parties have not explained in their procedural histories how
    Memphis has avoided filing an answer but we are not concerned with
    this point as our examination of the docket sheet confirms that it has
    not done so.
    18
    dismissal would appear to have removed Memphis from the
    litigation.
    Memphis, nevertheless, urges that the notice of dismissal
    was ineffective and that, in any event, we should not simply
    dismiss its appeal without granting it certain relief. With
    respect to the first contention, it reasons that inasmuch as
    it filed its appeal before Temple filed its notice of dismissal,
    the district court did not have jurisdiction to dismiss the
    case “over those aspects of [the] case included in the
    appeal.” Letter from Peter L. Frattarelli, attorney for
    Memphis, to court (Nov. 18, 2002). In this regard, Memphis
    cites Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 
    459 U.S. 56
    , 58, 
    103 S.Ct. 400
    , 402 (1982). Therefore, Memphis
    considers that it still is a party in the district court.
    Nevertheless, Memphis does not object to dismissal of its
    appeal and of Temple’s third-party complaint against it
    “provided that the dismissal of all claims against [it] is with
    prejudice and that the Court assesses [its] costs to Temple.”
    Letter of November 18, 2002.
    In considering whether to dismiss its appeal, we reject
    Memphis’s request that we modify Temple’s notice of
    dismissal in the district court to provide that it is with
    prejudice. After all, Rule 41(a) provides that “[u]nless
    otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal . . . the dismissal
    is without prejudice . . . .” Thus, Temple in specifying that
    the dismissal was without prejudice merely followed the
    rule. Consequently, even in the absence of the “without
    prejudice” provision, the effect of the notice of dismissal
    would have been the same. Furthermore, we see no reason
    why Temple should not be able partially to dismiss its
    third-party complaint as authorized by Rule 41(a).
    We, however, are not unmindful of Memphis’s claim that
    it should be awarded its costs. At oral argument before us
    it pointed out that it had expended substantial funds in
    defense of this action. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that
    Temple should not be required to pursue a claim that it
    seeks to abandon, i.e., the third-party complaint against
    Memphis, merely because the party against whom it has
    asserted the claim has expended effort and resources in
    defense against it. Thus, we will dismiss Memphis’s appeal
    at No. 01-4226 but will do so without prejudice to it
    19
    seeking an order from the district court to compensate it for
    its costs and fees in both the district court and in this
    court. Of course, we express no opinion on whether it is
    entitled to recover these expenses as the district court will
    resolve that issue on the remand of the case we are
    ordering.
    In reaching our result, we are cognizant of Memphis’s
    argument that the notice of dismissal was ineffective as the
    district court lost jurisdiction over the case when Memphis
    appealed. To the contrary, we will accommodate that
    argument by remanding the matter to the district court
    where Temple again should file the notice of dismissal. Cf.
    Venen v. Sweet, 
    758 F.2d 117
    , 123 (3d Cir. 1985) (court of
    appeals may remand case to the district court for that court
    to have jurisdiction to grant a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P.
    60(b)). In the circumstances, we have no need to determine
    whether the original notice of dismissal was effective.
    We make one further point with respect to Memphis’s
    status. We are dismissing its appeal on the basis of our
    understanding that Temple continues to wish to dismiss
    Memphis from the case and thus, on the remand we are
    ordering, will refile its notice of dismissal. If it does not do
    so promptly Memphis may move in this court to reinstate
    its appeal.10
    C.   THE JURISDICTIONAL NATURE OF THE ELEVENTH
    AMENDMENT
    The district court permitted the third-party complaint to
    go forward notwithstanding its holdings that two of the
    third-party defendants, Memphis and UMass, were arms of
    their respective states and thus could invoke the Eleventh
    Amendment. It reached this result because it held that they
    waived immunity under the Rehabilitation Act by their
    acceptance of federal funds and because Congress had
    10. We realize that under our opinion even if Temple does not file the
    notice of dismissal Memphis could move to dismiss the third-party
    complaint against it. Inasmuch as we are taxing costs in favor of UMass
    and Delaware State against Temple the district court might think it
    appropriate to follow the same course with respect to Memphis.
    20
    abrogated their immunity by enacting Title II of the ADA.
    These holdings permitted the district court to exercise
    jurisdiction notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment
    which recites that “[t]he judicial power of the United States
    shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity
    commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States
    by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of
    any Foreign State.” Moreover, as we have indicated, the
    district court held that there is a right of contribution
    under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. If the court had
    reached a contrary result either in its abrogation and
    waiver of immunity holdings or its contribution holding it
    would have dismissed UMass from this case, and if it
    reached a contrary result on the contribution issue it would
    have dismissed Delaware State from the case.11 Accordingly,
    there are two independent bases on which it is possible
    that Temple’s contribution claims must fail as a matter of
    law against the remaining third-party defendants, UMass
    and Delaware State, either that the Eleventh Amendment
    precludes the claims against UMass or that neither the
    Rehabilitation Act nor the ADA permits claims for
    contribution.12
    It might be thought that we should consider the statutory
    construction argument first for in Hindes v. FDIC, 
    137 F.3d 11
    . The court did not reach a definitive conclusion of the question of
    whether the Eleventh Amendment was applicable to Delaware State as it
    reserved judgment on that question with respect to the claim for
    contribution against it on the NJLAD count. Yet, it did deny Delaware
    State’s Eleventh Amendment motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity
    grounds Temple’s claim for contribution on the Title II and section 504
    claims as Delaware State did not establish that the amendment was
    applicable to it. While a contrary result on the immunity question with
    respect to Delaware State on the Title II and section 504 claims
    (including the court’s abrogation and waiver holdings) also would have
    led to its dismissal from the case, it does not challenge those
    determinations on this appeal.
    12. There is a third basis on which the contribution claims could fail,
    i.e., that the third-party complaint did not state a claim on which relief
    could be granted as a matter of law even if claims for contribution were
    permissible under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. See n.16 infra.
    But neither UMass nor Delaware State advances this theory on this
    appeal.
    21
    148, 166 (3d Cir. 1998), we observed that Eleventh
    Amendment immunity questions are “constitutional in
    scope” and that “[c]ourts, of course, will avoid such
    questions where possible.” On the other hand, questions as
    to the scope of the Rehabilitation Act and ADA with respect
    to the availability of contribution are not constitutional in
    scope. In Hindes, applying the approach of avoiding
    constitutional questions, we declined to determine whether
    suit was proper under the Ex Parte Young, 
    209 U.S. 123
    ,
    
    28 S.Ct. 441
     (1908), exception to Eleventh Amendment
    immunity inasmuch as the anti-injunction provision of the
    Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement
    Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) barred the suit. We explained our
    ruling in Hindes by stating: “[W]e need not decide difficult
    jurisdictional issues where we can decide the case on
    another dispositive issue in favor of the party who would
    benefit by a ruling that we do not have jurisdiction.” 
    Id.
    (citing Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 
    83 F.3d 610
    , 623
    (3d Cir. 1996)).
    Yet, within one month after we decided Hindes, the
    Supreme Court decided Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better
    Environment, 
    523 U.S. 83
    , 
    118 S.Ct. 1003
     (1998). In Steel
    Co. the Court rejected the notion of “hypothetical
    jurisdiction” adopted by some courts of appeals, whereby a
    court would “assume” jurisdiction for purposes of deciding
    the merits of a case, at least where the court could resolve
    the merits question more easily and the prevailing party on
    the merits would be the same as the prevailing party if
    jurisdiction were denied. 
    Id. at 93-94
    , 
    118 S.Ct. at 1012
    .
    Inasmuch as in entertaining Hindes we exercised
    hypothetical jurisdiction it would be plausible for us now to
    hold that notwithstanding Hindes, in the light of Steel Co.,
    we initially must address the Eleventh Amendment issues
    raised on this appeal.
    Yet, Steel Co. may be somewhat limited as it specifically
    indicated that “Article III jurisdiction is always an
    antecedent question.” 
    Id. at 101
    , 
    118 S.Ct. at 1016
    (emphasis added). In fact, the Court recognized that in its
    prior cases it had decided, for example, whether a statutory
    cause of action existed before determining statutory
    standing questions such as whether the plaintiff comes
    22
    within the zone of interests protected by the statute. 
    Id. at 96-97
    , 
    118 S.Ct. at
    1013 (citing Nat’l RR Passenger Corp. v.
    Nat’l Ass’n of RR Passengers, 
    414 U.S. 453
    , 365 n.13, 
    94 S.Ct. 690
    , 696 n.13 (1974)). Steel Co., therefore, should not
    be understood as requiring courts to answer all questions
    of “jurisdiction,” broadly understood,13 before addressing
    the existence of the cause of action sued upon. Instead,
    that case requires courts to answer questions concerning
    Article III jurisdiction before reaching other questions.14
    We, therefore, must consider whether the Eleventh
    Amendment immunity issues presented by this case are
    questions of Article III jurisdiction or are at least sufficiently
    similar to such questions to require application of Steel Co.
    As the Steel Co. Court stated, the “triad of injury in fact,
    causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article
    III’s case-or-controversy requirement.” Id. at 103-04, 
    118 S.Ct. at 1017
     (footnote omitted). The Eleventh Amendment
    has little bearing on these Article III concerns. See Calderon
    v. Ashmus, 
    523 U.S. 740
    , 745 n.2, 
    118 S.Ct. 1694
    , 1697
    n.2 (1998) (“While the Eleventh Amendment is jurisdictional
    in the sense that it is a limitation on the federal court’s
    judicial power, and, therefore, can be raised at any stage of
    13. “ ‘Jurisdiction,’ it has been observed, ‘is a word of many, too many,
    meanings.’ ” Steel Co., 
    523 U.S. at 90
    , 118 S.Ct. at 1010 (quoting United
    States v. Vanness, 
    85 F.3d 661
    , 663 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1996)).
    14. In fact, even this rule is not hard and fast after Steel Co. Three
    justices in that case would have decided the easier statutory question
    without reaching the jurisdictional question. Id. at 112, 131-34, 118
    S.Ct. at 1030-32, (Stevens, J., concurring, joined by Souter, J., and
    Ginsburg, J.). Three more justices agreed with the majority that the
    jurisdictional question properly was addressed first in that case, but left
    open the possibility that in other cases, courts may reserve difficult
    questions of jurisdiction when the case alternatively could be resolved on
    the merits in favor of the party who would have prevailed in the absence
    of jurisdiction. Id. at 110-11, 118 S.Ct. at 1020 (O’Connor, J.,
    concurring, joined by Kennedy, J.); id. at 111-12, 118 S.Ct. at 1020-21
    (Breyer, J., concurring). Thus, six justices maintained the position that
    in some circumstances a court may reserve certain questions of
    jurisdiction, even if those questions involve Article III jurisdiction, in
    favor of deciding the case on statutory grounds. We, however, need not
    go that far, inasmuch as we are asked to resolve a question not of Article
    III jurisdiction but of Eleventh Amendment immunity.
    23
    the proceedings, we have recognized that it is not
    coextensive with the limitations on judicial power in Article
    III.”); but see Wisconsin Dep’t of Corrs. v. Schacht, 
    524 U.S. 381
    , 389, 391, 
    118 S.Ct. 2047
    , 2052, 2054 (1998) (noting
    that the “Eleventh Amendment . . . does not automatically
    destroy original jurisdiction” and that the Court never has
    resolved whether, or to what extent, “Eleventh Amendment
    immunity is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction.”). It
    cannot, in any event, seriously be disputed that this case
    meets the minimum requirements for Article III jurisdiction.
    While we have not had occasion to consider whether Steel
    Co. requires the resolution of Eleventh Amendment issues
    before a court reaches different issues, other courts of
    appeals have done so. As it happens, they have split fairly
    evenly on this issue, with three courts reading Steel Co.
    broadly and holding that courts must address the Eleventh
    Amendment issue first as it raises an Article III type
    restriction, Martin v. Kansas, 
    190 F.3d 1120
    , 1126 (10th
    Cir. 1999); United States v. Texas Tech Univ., 
    171 F.3d 279
    ,
    287 (5th Cir. 1999); Seaborn v. Florida Dep’t of Corrs., 
    143 F.3d 1405
    , 1407 (11th Cir. 1998), while at least three
    courts have held to the contrary, United States ex rel. Long
    v. SCS Bus. & Tech. Inst., Inc., 
    173 F.3d 890
    , 892 (D.C. Cir.
    1999); Parella v. Ret. Bd. of the R.I. Employees’ Ret. Sys.,
    
    173 F.3d 46
     (1st Cir. 1999); Kennedy v. Nat’l Juvenile Det.
    Ass’n, 
    187 F.3d 690
    , 696 (7th Cir. 1999) (not citing Steel
    Co.); see also Kovacevich v. Kent State Univ., 
    224 F.3d 806
    ,
    816 (6th Cir. 2000) (finding that “the Eleventh Amendment
    is not jurisdictional in nature,” but addressing that issue
    first where a state defendant had raised it). The Supreme
    Court has not resolved this dispute.
    The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit well articulated
    the view that a court must address Eleventh Amendment
    issues first. Recognizing that courts often interpret statutes
    so as to avoid constitutional problems, the court
    distinguished cases relying on that practice by finding that
    “[t]he Eleventh Amendment’s admonition is jurisdictional in
    nature.” Texas Tech, 
    171 F.3d at 285
    . The court explained:
    “While often noted for preserving state sovereignty, the
    Amendment        only   accomplishes       this    end   through
    jurisdictional limitation. . . . Its negative instruction on how
    24
    to construe federal judicial power operates as an additional
    boundary on that power, supplementing the restraints on
    judicial power already implicitly provided in Article III of the
    Constitution.” 
    Id.
     The court recognized the Supreme Court’s
    recent statement that the Eleventh Amendment “is not co-
    extensive with the limitations on judicial power in Article
    III,” Calderon, 
    523 U.S. at
    745 n.2, 118 S.Ct. at 1697 n.2,
    but opined that the Eleventh Amendment nonetheless is
    “certainly intertwined with Article III jurisprudence,” Texas
    Tech, 
    171 F.3d at
    285 n.9.
    Notwithstanding the views of the Court of Appeals for the
    Fifth Circuit we are convinced that this “intertwining” does
    not require that we apply the rule of Steel Co. in this case.
    Rather, we are convinced that the Court of Appeals for the
    First Circuit expressed a better view in Parella. In that case,
    the court recognized the intertwined nature of the two
    constitutional provisions, both of which place limits on
    judicial power. Parella, 173 F.3d at 54. The court further
    noted other characteristics of the Eleventh Amendment that
    support such a view of the Eleventh Amendment, namely,
    that the Eleventh Amendment can be raised for the first
    time on appeal and that a court sua sponte may raise
    Eleventh Amendment issues. Id. Nonetheless, the court
    observed, “the nature of the Eleventh Amendment is more
    complex than these decisions acknowledge.” Id. at 54-55.
    For example, a state may waive Eleventh Amendment
    immunity, and, although courts may raise Eleventh
    Amendment issues sua sponte, they are not required to do
    so. Id. (citing Schacht, 
    524 U.S. at 389
    , 118 S.Ct. at 2052).
    The characteristics of Eleventh Amendment immunity the
    court identified in Parella comport with Justice Kennedy’s
    understanding that the Supreme Court’s “precedents have
    treated the Eleventh Amendment as ‘enact[ing] a sovereign
    immunity from suit, rather than as a nonwaivable limit on
    the federal judiciary’s subject-matter jurisdiction.’ ”
    Schacht, 
    524 U.S. at 394
    , 118 S.Ct. at 2055 (Kennedy, J.,
    concurring) (quoting Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 
    521 U.S. 261
    , 267, 
    117 S.Ct. 2028
    , 2033 (1997)). Furthermore, as
    the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit noted in Parella,
    in Calderon the Supreme Court stated that the Eleventh
    Amendment is not co-extensive with Article III’s limitations
    25
    and that it should consider the question whether an
    inmate’s declaratory judgment action presented an Article
    III case or controversy before it could consider the parties’
    Eleventh Amendment and First Amendment contentions.
    Parella, 173 F.3d at 55. If the Supreme Court considered
    Eleventh Amendment immunity to be an Article III concern,
    it would be expected that the Court at least would have
    made reference to it when deciding the Article III question
    rather than putting the immunity issue aside for
    consideration after its resolution of the case or controversy
    issue.
    Finally, the main object underlying Steel Co. is that
    courts not declare the law where they do not have Article III
    jurisdiction because any opinion in such a situation would
    be advisory, thus raising separation of powers problems.
    Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 101, 118 S.Ct. at 1016. Eleventh
    Amendment immunity, on the other hand, does not affect
    a court’s underlying power to hear a given case or
    controversy. If it did, courts would be obligated to raise
    Eleventh Amendment issues sua sponte, but the Supreme
    Court has held that they have no such obligation. See
    Parella, 
    173 F.3d at
    55-56 (citing Schacht, 
    524 U.S. at
    387-
    91, 118 S.Ct. at 2052-53). Furthermore, if the presence of
    Eleventh Amendment immunity implicated case or
    controversy concerns, states would not be able to waive
    that immunity by their conduct in a given case.
    The Eleventh Amendment’s limitations on judicial power
    are, therefore, in the nature of a constitutional recognition
    of the states’ sovereign immunity, not a statement of a
    nonwaivable absence of subject-matter jurisdiction.
    Accordingly, Eleventh Amendment cases do not raise the
    same separation of powers concerns with respect to
    hypothetical jurisdiction as do Article III standing cases.
    We, therefore, hold that, notwithstanding Steel Co., a court
    may reserve judgment on Eleventh Amendment issues even
    when advanced by a state where it can resolve the case on
    other grounds and the prevailing party on the merits would
    be the same as the prevailing party if immunity were
    recognized.15
    15. Inasmuch as UMass does not urge that we resolve the Eleventh
    Amendment questions before we decide the statutory contribution
    26
    We follow that course here. Even though, as will be seen,
    our nonconstitutional disposition of this case will not be
    easy, still it is better to decide the case on that basis than
    to address the constitutional jurisdictional issues under the
    Eleventh Amendment. Thus, we pass the Eleventh
    Amendment issues with respect to UMass and in view of
    our conclusions on the contribution issue dismiss its
    appeal at No. 02-1789 as moot.
    D.    RIGHT TO CONTRIBUTION UNDER TITLE II AND
    THE REHABILITATION ACT
    In considering the right to contribution, we start with
    section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act which provides: “No
    otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United
    States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be
    excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits
    of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
    activity receiving federal financial assistance.”16 29 U.S.C.
    questions, conceptually, at least, we could hold that it has waived its
    Eleventh Amendment immunity to that very limited extent. See SCS
    Bus., 
    173 F.3d at 892-93
    . Indeed, in its brief advancing its Eleventh
    Amendment arguments, UMass urges that “the right of action for
    contribution question should be addressed first, as its resolution may
    avoid the need to address the constitutionality issues herein.” UMass Br.
    at 18 n.3. Moreover, Delaware State has not raised the Eleventh
    Amendment in this court and, therefore, regardless of what our
    disposition of UMass’s Eleventh Amendment claims might be we,
    nevertheless, could not avoid considering the contribution issues on this
    appeal. See n.11, supra.
    16. The district court held in its November 7, 2001 opinion that the
    circumstances of the case are such that Temple might be able to obtain
    contribution from the third-party defendants. Bowers, 
    171 F. Supp. 2d at 397-98
    . We have some question about whether that holding was
    correct but we neither accept nor reject it. See, e.g. Harka v. Nabati, 
    487 A.2d 432
    , 434-35 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985) (Pennsylvania law). In this
    regard, we point out that the alleged wrongs attributable to Temple and
    the third-party defendants were independent to the extent that each
    such university made its own determination with respect to Bowers. See
    Cureton, 
    198 F.3d at 110
     (NCAA “member institutions continue to make
    individual admission decisions”). On the other hand, they acted similarly
    because all followed the NCAA rules. We, however, will not decide this
    case by a review of the district court’s view of whether contribution
    might be available here, except with respect to statutory authorization,
    inasmuch as neither UMass nor Delaware State has challenged the
    district court’s holding on this point.
    27
    § 794(a). The term “program or activity” includes “a college,
    university, or other postsecondary institution, or a public
    system of higher education.” Id. § 794(b)(2)(A). Though
    section 504 does not in itself provide a private right of
    action for aggrieved individuals, it does state that the
    “remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in title VI of the
    Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C.A. § 2000d et seq.] shall
    be available to any person aggrieved by any act or failure to
    act by any recipient of federal financial assistance or federal
    provider of such assistance under section 794 of this title.”
    Id. § 794a(a)(2). Inasmuch as courts have held that Title VI
    implies a private right of action, “private individuals may
    sue to enforce § 601 of Title VI and obtain both injunctive
    relief and damages.” Alexander v. Sandoval, 
    532 U.S. 275
    ,
    279, 
    121 S.Ct. 1511
    , 1516 (2001).
    Title II of the ADA provides: “Subject to the provisions of
    this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability
    shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from
    participation in or be denied the benefits of the services,
    programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to
    discrimination by any such entity.” 
    42 U.S.C. § 12132
    . As
    in the case of section 504, Title II does not, in terms, create
    a private right of action. Instead, it provides that the
    remedies, procedures and rights applicable to section 504
    of the Rehabilitation Act also are applicable under Title II.
    
    Id.
     § 12133.
    Neither statute explicitly provides for a right to
    contribution. The district court, however, found that such
    a right exists by applying the reasoning in Musick, Peeler &
    Garrett v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 
    508 U.S. 286
    , 
    113 S.Ct. 2085
     (1993). UMass and Delaware State argue that
    Musick is inapplicable in this case, and that, under Texas
    Industries, Inc. v. Racliff Materials, Inc., 
    451 U.S. 630
    , 
    101 S.Ct. 2085
     (1981), and Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport
    Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, 
    451 U.S. 77
    , 
    101 S.Ct. 1571
     (1981), we should refuse to recognize a right to
    contribution. Surprisingly, it appears that no federal
    appellate court, at least of which we are aware, has
    answered the question of whether there is a right to
    contribution under Title II or under section 504 of the
    Rehabilitation Act.
    28
    1.   Right of Action or Remedy?
    Preliminarily we consider whether we must determine if
    a right of contribution is a right of action in itself or
    whether it is a remedy. In an effort to distinguish this case
    from Northwest Airlines and other cases derived from Cort
    v. Ash, 
    422 U.S. 66
    , 
    95 S.Ct. 2080
     (1975), in which the
    Supreme Court narrowed the circumstances in which a
    court may find an implied right of action, Temple argues
    that the right of contribution is a remedy. In Temple’s view,
    we, like the Supreme Court in Musick, should decline to
    apply the strict test for implying a cause of action used in
    Cort v. Ash, Northwest Airlines, and Texas Industries
    because this case involves statutes that have been enforced
    through judicially established rights of action rather than
    through detailed remedial schemes. Temple argues that
    instead we should apply a less exacting standard based on
    Musick, asking only whether the availability of a right to
    contribution should be implied as a proper part of the
    liability apparatus created by the judiciary to enforce the
    statutes. Temple Br. at 18. Thus, by treating the right to
    contribution as a remedy, Temple not only seeks to avoid
    the Cort v. Ash analysis, but also attempts to avail itself of
    the principle that once a right and cause of action are
    established, the federal courts are empowered broadly to
    award any appropriate relief. See Franklin v. Gwinnett
    County Pub. Schs., 
    503 U.S. 60
    , 70-71, 
    112 S.Ct. 1028
    ,
    1035-36 (1992).
    This argument is something of a red herring, however. To
    be sure, Supreme Court cases, at least since the 1970s,
    have referred to rights, rights of action, and remedies
    separately. Nonetheless, this case should not turn on our
    characterization of the nature of contribution as the
    Supreme Court has not determined whether contribution is
    available by clearly distinguishing among rights, rights of
    action, and remedies. Thus, in Northwest Airlines, the
    Court stated: “Even though Congress did not expressly
    create a contribution remedy, if its intent to do so may fairly
    be inferred from either or both statutes, an implied cause
    of action for contribution could be recognized on the basis of
    the analysis used in cases such as Cort v. Ash . . . .” 451
    U.S. at 90, 101 S.Ct. at 1580. In Texas Industries, the
    29
    Court, in deciding whether to find an implied right to
    contribution, stated that its “focus, as it is in any case
    involving the implication of a right of action, is on the intent
    of Congress.” 451 U.S. at 639, 101 S.Ct. at 2066. Finally,
    in Musick the Court refers to the right of contribution in
    ways that could support an understanding of the claim as
    either a right, a right of action, or a remedy. See 
    508 U.S. at 291-92
    , 113 S.Ct. at 2088.
    Thus, contribution cases are unlike discrimination cases,
    in which the right at issue (the right to be free from
    discrimination) is distinct from the remedy sought
    (monetary or injunctive relief), in a way that makes
    discussion of rights, rights of action, and remedies overlap.
    Nevertheless, this inconsistency does not overly concern us
    inasmuch as the key question before us is simply whether
    Northwest Airlines/Texas Industries or Musick should guide
    us and Musick did not distinguish the former cases as
    “right of action” as opposed to remedy cases,17 but rather
    did so on more analytic grounds that we will discuss
    shortly.
    2.   Supreme Court Precedent Addressing Implied Rights
    to Contribution
    In Northwest Airlines, a class of flight attendants sued its
    employer, Northwest Airlines, Inc., under the Equal Pay Act
    and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, challenging the
    legality of the wage differential between pursers (who were
    males) and stewardesses (who were females). The plaintiff
    class won at trial, following which Northwest Airlines filed
    a separate action stating a claim for contribution against
    two unions that represented the employees with whom
    Northwest Airlines had bargained collectively in setting the
    employees’ wages. The Supreme Court held that there is
    not an implied right to contribution under Title VII or the
    17. Indeed, the Musick Court ultimately noted that it was being asked to
    recognize “a cause of action that supports suit against these parties.”
    
    508 U.S. at 292
    , 113 S.Ct. at 2088. We, too, are inclined to refer to
    contribution as a cause of action in this context. In other words, Temple
    asks us to recognize a cause of action for contribution, and the remedy
    it will receive if successful on this cause of action is a monetary recovery.
    30
    Equal Pay Act. Northwest Airlines, 
    451 U.S. at 98
    , 101 S.Ct.
    at 1584.
    In Northwest Airlines, the Court explained that a right to
    contribution can be created in either of two ways: either
    Congress could have intended, explicitly or implicitly, to
    create such a right under Cort v. Ash, or “a cause of action
    for contribution may have become a part of the federal
    common law through the exercise of judicial power to
    fashion appropriate remedies for unlawful conduct.” Id. at
    90, 101 S.Ct. at 1580. In examining the first possibility, the
    Court explained: “In determining whether a federal statute
    that does not expressly provide for a particular private right
    of action nonetheless implicitly created that right, our task
    is one of statutory construction. . . . The ultimate question
    in cases such as this is whether Congress intended to
    create the private remedy—for example, a right to
    contribution—that the plaintiff seeks to invoke.” Id. at 91,
    101 S.Ct. at 1580 (citation omitted). Factors relevant to
    Congress’s intent include legislative history, the underlying
    purpose and structure of the statutory scheme, and the
    likelihood that Congress intended to supersede or to
    supplement existing state remedies. Id., 101 S.Ct. at 1580
    (citing Cort v. Ash, 
    422 U.S. at 78
    , 
    95 S.Ct. at 2088
    ;
    Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 
    441 U.S. 677
    , 689-709, 
    99 S.Ct. 1946
    , 1953-64 (1979)).
    The Court then asked whether the language of the
    statute demonstrated an intent to create a right of
    contribution. Noting that neither statute expressly created
    such a right, the Court explained that “[t]his omission,
    although significant, is not dispositive if, among other
    things, the language of the statutes indicates that they were
    enacted for the special benefit of a class of which the
    petitioner is a member.” 451 U.S. at 91-92, 101 S.Ct. at
    1580-81. The Court concluded, however, that “it cannot
    possibly be said that employers are members of the class
    for whose especial benefit either the Equal Pay Act or Title
    VII was enacted . . . . To the contrary, both statutes are
    expressly directed against employers; Congress intended in
    these statutes to regulate their conduct for the benefit of
    employees . . . . In light of this fact, petitioner ‘can scarcely
    lay claim to the status of “beneficiary” whom Congress
    31
    considered in need of protection.’ ” Id. at 92, 101 S.Ct. at
    1581 (citation and footnotes omitted).
    On this point, the Court specifically rebuked the court of
    appeals, which had refused to apply Cort v. Ash literally in
    evaluating the claim of a right to contribution. Id. at 92
    n.25, 101 S.Ct. at 1581 n.25. The court of appeals had
    asked, instead, whether employees could bring suit against
    their unions under the statutes. The Court stated that this
    inquiry confused the question whether the elements of a
    contribution claim are established in a given case—a fact
    the Court assumed in deciding the case and which, we also
    assume here18—with the question of whether Congress
    intended that contribution should be available under any
    circumstances. Thus, “[t]he Court of Appeals erred . . .
    because it failed to focus on whether the party seeking to
    invoke the implied remedy is a member of a class that
    Congress intended to benefit.” Id., 101 S.Ct. at 1581 n.25.
    Next, the Court considered whether the structure of the
    statutes might suggest that Congress intended to create a
    right of contribution. Noting that both statutes established
    “comprehensive programs designed to eliminate certain
    varieties of employment discrimination” and contained
    “express provision for private enforcement in certain
    carefully defined circumstances, and provide[d] for
    enforcement at the instance of the Federal government in
    other circumstances,” the Court concluded that “[t]he
    comprehensive character of the remedial scheme expressly
    fashioned by Congress strongly evidences an intent not to
    authorize additional remedies.” Id. at 93-94, 101 S.Ct. at
    1581-82. The Court explained that “[i]t is, of course, not
    within our competence as federal judges to amend these
    comprehensive enforcement schemes by adding to them
    another private remedy not authorized by Congress.” Id. at
    94, 101 S.Ct. at 1582.
    Finally, the Court noted that nothing in the legislative
    history suggested a congressional intent to create a right to
    contribution. Id., 101 S.Ct. at 1582. The Court recognized
    18. We make this assumption in view of our determination that it would
    be inappropriate, even if possible to do so, to decide this case on a
    sufficiency of the pleading basis. See n.16, supra.
    32
    that it is not uncommon in an implied right of action case
    to encounter such legislative silence and that, on its own,
    such silence is not necessarily inconsistent with an intent
    to create the remedy suggested. Id., 101 S.Ct. at 1582.
    Nonetheless, in the absence of suggestions in the statutory
    language or structure that Congress intended to create
    such a right of action, “the essential predicate for
    implication of a private remedy simply does not exist.” Id.,
    101 S.Ct. at 1582.19
    The Court also considered the second possible source of
    a right of contribution, namely, federal common law. The
    Court noted that, except in limited circumstances such as
    cases involving the rights or duties of the United States or
    resolution of interstate controversies, the courts’ power to
    fashion federal common law is strictly limited. Id. at 95,
    101 S.Ct. at 1582. The Court distinguished Cooper
    Stevedoring Co. v. Fritz Kopke, Inc., 
    417 U.S. 106
    , 
    94 S.Ct. 2174
     (1974), in which it had found a nonstatutory right to
    contribution in the admiralty setting, noting that the
    constitutional grant of general admiralty jurisdiction to the
    federal courts provides a basis for development of judge-
    made rules in the area of maritime law. Id. at 95-96, 101
    S.Ct. at 1583. Finally, the Court concluded that it should
    not create a right to contribution where Congress had
    “enacted a comprehensive legislative scheme including an
    integrated system of procedures for enforcement.” Id., 101
    S.Ct. at 1584. The Court left open the question whether
    federal courts may have more power to fashion remedies in
    other areas of the law, such as under the antitrust laws,
    under which federal courts act more as common law
    courts. Id. at 98 & n.42, 101 S.Ct. at 1584 & n.42.
    That same term the Court addressed a question not
    involved in but referred to in Northwest Airlines and
    concluded that the antitrust laws do not confer on federal
    courts the power to formulate a right to contribution where
    Congress has not created the right explicitly. Texas Indus.,
    19. In a footnote, the Court stated that in a case where neither the
    statute nor the legislative history reveals a congressional intent to create
    a private right of action for the benefit of the plaintiff, the Cort v. Ash
    inquiry need continue no further. Id. 94 n.31, 101 S.Ct. at 1582 n.31.
    33
    451 U.S. at 646, 101 S.Ct. at 2070. The Court analyzed the
    question of whether the antitrust laws establish a right of
    contribution in the same manner as in Northwest Airlines.
    It concluded that there was no congressional intent to
    create such a right, noting that there was no indication of
    such an intent in the language of the statute or in the
    legislative history. Id. at 639, 101 S.Ct. at 2066. The Court
    again noted that the statutes in question “were not adopted
    for the benefit of the participants” in the prohibited conduct
    in question. Id., 101 S.Ct. at 2066. Rather, the petitioner
    was “ ‘a member of the class whose activities Congress
    intended to regulate for the protection and benefit of an
    entirely distinct class . . . .’ ” Id., 101 S.Ct. at 2066 (quoting
    Piper v. Chris-Craft Indus., Inc., 
    430 U.S. 1
    , 37, 
    97 S.Ct. 926
    , 947 (1977) (emphasis in Texas Industries)). The Court,
    therefore, concluded that any right to contribution could be
    derived only from federal common law.
    The Court then expanded on its discussion in Northwest
    Airlines of federal courts’ power to recognize a right of
    contribution as part of federal common law. The Court
    explained that the power to formulate federal common law
    is implicated in two basic types of cases: where a federal
    rule of decision is necessary to protect “uniquely federal
    interests,” and where “Congress has given the courts the
    power to develop substantive law.” Id. at 640, 101 S.Ct. at
    2067. The Court found that antitrust suits, which involve
    the rights and interests of private parties, do not involve the
    duties of the federal government, the distribution of powers
    in the federal system, or matters necessarily subject to
    federal control, and, therefore, do not involve “uniquely
    federal interests.” Id. at 642, 101 S.Ct. at 2068.
    With regard to the second type of case in which courts
    have the power to formulate federal common law, the
    paradigmatic case is Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills,
    
    353 U.S. 448
    , 
    77 S.Ct. 912
     (1957), in which the Supreme
    Court read section 301 of the Labor Management Relations
    Act not only as a grant of jurisdiction over certain areas of
    labor law but also as a grant of the power to develop
    common law of labor-management relations. Texas Indus.,
    
    451 U.S. at 642-43
    , 101 S.Ct. at 2068. The Court noted
    that federal courts traditionally had broad common law
    34
    powers under the antitrust laws as well. Id. at 643, 101
    S.Ct. at 2068. Nonetheless, the Court held that, although
    Congress intended to give the courts the power to develop
    common law defining violations of the antitrust laws, there
    was no similar indication of congressional intent with
    regard to the provisions of the antitrust laws providing for
    treble damages and other remedies. Id. at 643-44, 101
    S.Ct. at 1068-69. Instead, the Court held, the “detailed and
    specific” remedial provisions set forth in the Sherman Act
    give rise to a strong presumption that Congress deliberately
    omitted a contribution remedy from the statute. Id. at 644-
    45, 101 S.Ct. at 2069-70. The Court, therefore, concluded
    that the antitrust laws do not confer on federal courts “the
    broad power to formulate the right to contribution sought
    here.” Id. at 646, 101 S.Ct. at 2070.
    In Musick, however, the Court followed a different course,
    distinguishing Northwest Airlines and Texas Industries and
    holding that defendants in an action under Rule 10b-5 of
    the Securities Exchange Commission adopted pursuant to
    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 have a right to seek
    contribution under federal law. 
    508 U.S. at 297
    , 113 S.Ct.
    at 2091. The Court distinguished Northwest Airlines and
    Texas Industries, as well as the precedents on which those
    cases were based, as follows:
    The federal interests in both Texas Industries and
    Northwest Airlines were defined by statutory provisions
    that were express in creating the substantive damages
    liability for which contribution was sought. Recognizing
    that the applicable statutes did not ‘implicate “uniquely
    federal interests” of the kind that oblige courts to
    formulate federal common law,’ Texas Industries, 451
    U.S. at 642, 101 S.Ct. at 2068, we asked whether
    Congress ‘expressly or by clear implication’ envisioned
    a contribution right to accompany the substantive
    damages right created, id. at 638, 101 S.Ct. at 2066,
    or, failing that, whether Congress ‘intended courts to
    have the power to alter or supplement the remedies
    enacted,’ id. at 645, 101 S.Ct. at 2069 . . . . But these
    inquiries are not helpful in the present context. The
    private right of action under Rule 10b-5 was implied by
    the Judiciary on the theory courts should recognize
    35
    private remedies to supplement federal statutory
    duties, not on the theory Congress had given an
    unequivocal direction to the courts to do so. Blue Chip
    Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 
    421 U.S. 723
    , 730, 737,
    
    95 S.Ct. 1917
    , 1922, 1926, 
    44 L.Ed.2d 539
     (1975).
    Thus, it would be futile to ask whether the 1934
    Congress also displayed a clear intent to create a
    contribution right collateral to the remedy. [See
    Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 
    503 U.S. 60
    , 76, 
    112 S.Ct. 1028
    , 1039, 
    117 L.Ed.2d 208
     (1992);
    
    id. at 77
    , 
    112 S.Ct. at 1039
     (Scalia, J., concurring)].
    Id. at 290-91, 113 S.Ct at 2087-88. In response to the
    argument that the precedents on which Northwest Airlines
    and Texas Industries were based should control, the Court
    continued:
    This argument . . . would have much force were the
    duty to be created one governing conduct subject to
    liability under an express remedial provision fashioned
    by Congress, or one governing conduct not already
    subject to liability through private suit. That, however,
    is not the present state of the jurisprudence we
    consider here. The parties against whom contribution
    is sought are, by definition, persons or entities alleged
    to have violated existing securities laws and who share
    joint liability for that wrong under a remedial scheme
    established by the federal courts. Even though we are
    being asked to recognize a cause of action that
    supports a suit against these parties, the duty is but
    the duty to contribute for having committed a wrong
    that courts have already deemed actionable under
    federal law. The violation of the securities laws gives
    rise to the 10b-5 private cause of action, and the
    question before us is the ancillary one of how damages
    are to be shared among persons or entities already
    subject to that liability. Having implied the underlying
    liability in the first place, to now disavow any authority
    to allocate it on the theory that Congress has not
    addressed the issue would be most unfair to those
    against whom damages are assessed.
    We must confront the law in its current form. The
    federal courts have accepted and exercised the
    36
    principal responsibility for the continuing elaboration
    of the scope of the 10b-5 right and the definition of the
    duties it imposes. As we recognized in a case arising
    under § 14(a) of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78n(a),
    ‘where a legal structure of private statutory rights has
    developed without clear indications of congressional
    intent,’ a federal court has the limited power to define
    ‘the contours of that structure.’ Virginia Bankshares,
    Inc. v. Sandberg, 
    501 U.S. 1083
    , 1104, 
    111 S.Ct. 2749
    ,
    2764, 
    115 L.Ed.2d 929
     (1991). As to this proposition
    we were unanimous. See 
    ibid.
     (SOUTER, J., joined by
    REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE, O’CONNOR, and
    SCALIA, JJ.); 
    id., at 1114
    , 
    111 S.Ct., at 2768
    (KENNEDY, J., joined by MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and
    STEVENS, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in
    part) (‘Where an implied cause of action is well
    accepted by our own cases and has become an
    established part of the securities laws . . . we should
    enforce it as a meaningful remedy unless we are to
    eliminate it altogether’). See also Blue Chip Stamps,
    
    supra, at 737
    , 95 S.Ct., at 1926 (recognizing the
    authority of federal courts to ‘define the contours of a
    private cause of action under Rule 10b-5’ and ‘to flesh
    out the portions of the law with respect to which
    neither the congressional enactment nor the
    administrative regulations offer conclusive guidance’).
    Id. at 292-93, 113 S.Ct. at 2088-89. The Court found
    support for its conclusions in two amendments to the
    securities laws, in which Congress appeared to
    acknowledge the judicially created Rule 10b-5 action
    “without any further expression of legislative intent to
    define it.” Id. at 294, 113 S.Ct. at 2089.
    Having declined to follow Northwest Airlines and Texas
    Industries, the Court turned to “the question whether a
    right to contribution is within the contours of the 10b-5
    action.” Id., 113 S.Ct. at 2089. The Court explained,
    however, that its “task is not to assess the relative merits
    of the competing rules, but rather to attempt to infer how
    the 1934 Congress would have addressed the issue had the
    10b-5 action been included as an express provision in the
    1934 Act.” Id., 113 S.Ct. at 2090. The Court acknowledged
    37
    that this exercise may appear to be “not a promising
    venture as a general proposition,” but, nonetheless, found
    that other specific sections of the 1934 Act to which Rule
    10b-5 was analogous provided a right of contribution. Id. at
    295-97, 113 S.Ct. at 2090-91.
    Beginning with the language of section 10(b) itself, the
    Court noted that the text provided little guidance as to a
    right to contribution, but found that “[h]aving made no
    attempt to define the precise contours of the private cause
    of action under § 10(b), Congress had no occasion to
    address how to limit, compute, or allocate liability arising
    from it.” Id. at 295, 113 S.Ct. at 2090. The Court then
    compared Rule 10b-5 to the eight express liability
    provisions in the 1933 Securities Act and the 1934
    Securities Exchange Act, and found that it was most
    similar to two provisions that conferred an explicit private
    right of action, because both provisions targeted the same
    danger that was the focus of section 10(b), because both
    had the same purpose “to deter fraud and manipulative
    practices in the securities markets and to ensure full
    disclosure of information material to investment decisions,”
    and because Rule 10b-5 defendants stood in a similar
    position to defendants in actions based on the other two
    provisions. Id. at 296, 113 S.Ct. at 2090-91. Because those
    two provisions each contained “nearly identical express
    provisions for a right to contribution,” the Court concluded:
    “Absent any showing that the implied § 10(b) liability
    structure or the 1934 Act as a whole will be frustrated by
    finding a right to contribution paralleling the right to
    contribution in analogous express liability provisions, our
    task is complete and our resolution clear: Those charged
    with liability in a 10b-5 action have a right to contribution
    against other parties who have joint responsibility for the
    violation.” Id. at 298, 113 S.Ct. at 2091-92.
    3.   Applicability of Musick Analysis
    Although the Court’s decision in Musick may seem to
    have been something of a departure from the course it
    appeared to be setting in Northwest Airlines and Texas
    Industries, we can read the three cases harmoniously.
    When a statute creates a private right of action but fails to
    38
    provide expressly for a right to contribution, particularly if
    the remedial scheme created is detailed, Congress’s silence
    with regard to contribution weighs heavily against implying
    such a right because there is a presumption that the
    silence reflects congressional intent not to create such a
    right. On the other hand, when courts have implied a right
    of action it would be “futile” to look for congressional intent
    to create a right to contribution, inasmuch as Congress did
    not intend explicitly to create the cause of action on which
    such a right would be based. Musick, 
    508 U.S. at 291
    , 113
    S.Ct. at 2088. In that situation, courts have somewhat
    broader latitude to determine whether a right to
    contribution is consistent with Congress’s intent in creating
    the right sought to be enforced. The first question we must
    resolve, therefore, is whether the private rights of action
    under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II are
    express or implied.
    This question is not as easily answered as one might
    expect.20 In discussing rights and remedies available to
    aggrieved     persons,    Title   II   cross-references   the
    Rehabilitation Act, which in turn cross-references Title VI of
    the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title II was enacted in 1990,
    while the Title VI cross-reference of the Rehabilitation Act
    was enacted in 1978. By 1978, courts had recognized a
    private right of action under Title VI for at least a decade.
    Cannon, 
    441 U.S. at 696-97
    , 
    99 S.Ct. at 1957
     (finding
    support, in a case decided in 1979, for a holding that Title
    IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, which was
    modeled on Title VI, creates a private right of action from
    the fact that a 1967 decision of the Court of Appeals for the
    Fifth Circuit, Bossier Parish School Board v. Lemon, 
    370 F.2d 847
     (5th Cir. 1967), finding a private right of action
    under Title VI “was repeatedly cited with approval and
    never questioned during the ensuing five years” and by
    “presuming both that [the members of Congress who
    enacted Title IX in 1972] were aware of the prior
    interpretation of Title VI and that that interpretation
    reflects their intent with respect to Title IX”).
    20. All parties seem to assume in their briefs that private rights of action
    under both acts have been implied by courts.
    39
    Thus, although the remedy available to persons aggrieved
    by violations of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II is at root
    an implied one, those statutes, by cross-referencing Title
    VI, which already had been interpreted as creating a private
    right of action, arguably contain explicit provisions creating
    a private right of action. Indeed, the legislative history
    discussing Title II’s cross-reference to sections 504 and 505
    of the Rehabilitation Act explicitly states: “As with section
    504, there is also a private right of action for persons with
    disabilities, which includes the full panoply of remedies.”
    H.R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2, at 98, reprinted in 1990
    U.S.C.C.A.N. 303, 381; 
    id.,
     pt. 3, at 52, reprinted in 1990
    U.S.C.C.A.N. 445, 475 (“As in title I, the Committee adopted
    an amendment to delete the term ‘shall be available’ in
    order to clarify that Rehabilitation Act remedies are the only
    remedies which title II provides for violations of title II. The
    Rehabilitation Act provides a private right of action, with a
    full panoply of remedies available, as well as attorney’s
    fees.”).
    Thus, Title II and section 504 are unlike Title VII of the
    Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the antitrust laws, which spell
    out the private right of action available to aggrieved
    individuals, but are also unlike Rule 10b-5, which does not
    by its language contemplate any sort of private right of
    action. Of course, both the statutory language and the
    legislative history of Title II and section 504 are silent with
    respect to a right of contribution. The cross-reference
    language in both acts, therefore, could support two distinct
    inferences with respect to Congress’s intent: either
    Congress intended to make available to aggrieved persons
    the Title VI rights and remedies in place at the time of
    passage of the two provisions (1978 for the Rehabilitation
    Act and 1990 for the ADA) or Congress intended to allow
    the rights and remedies under Title II and section 504 to
    expand and retract as the courts defined the contours of
    Title VI liability.
    If the former is true, then we can say that, because
    reported cases had not found a right to contribution under
    Title VI as of 1978 or 1990 (or indeed as of the present),
    Congress must not have considered a right to contribution
    to be a part of the liability scheme of Title VI that should be
    40
    incorporated into the liability schemes of section 504 and
    Title II. In other words, even though Congress
    acknowledged the private right of action under Title VI,
    which had been recognized by courts since at least 1967,
    and intended to make a similar private right of action
    available under section 504 and Title II, Congress could not
    be said to be acknowledging a right to contribution under
    Title VI, as the courts had not yet recognized that right.
    Congress likely would have included language explicitly
    providing for a right to contribution had it intended to
    expand the Title VI rights and remedies incorporated into
    section 504 and Title II. On the other hand, if we draw the
    latter reference, then we should read the cross-referencing
    language as an acknowledgment not of solely those rights
    and remedies available at the time of passage of the acts
    (e.g., a private right of action but not a right to
    contribution) but also of the power of federal courts to
    define the contours of Title VI (and, therefore, section 504
    and Title II) liability in much the same way a common law
    court might.
    We find that Congress’s decision to incorporate Title VI’s
    rights and remedies, including those defined by courts
    rather than by Congress itself, into the Rehabilitation Act
    and Title II by simple cross-reference, without attempting to
    define more precisely those rights and remedies, constitutes
    a recognition on Congress’s part of the somewhat broader
    role of federal courts in defining the contours of Title VI
    (and, therefore, section 504 and Title II) liability. Congress’s
    use of cross-referencing language in section 504 and Title
    II is similar, in analytic terms, to the amendments to the
    securities laws considered by the Musick Court. Those two
    amendments made explicit reference to “any cause of action
    implied from a provision under this title” and to “any
    private civil action implied under . . . this title.” Musick, 
    508 U.S. at 293-94
    , 113 S.Ct. at 2089. From this language, the
    Court reached the same conclusion we reach here with
    respect to section 504 and Title II: “We infer from these
    references an acknowledgment of the 10b-5 action without
    any further expression of legislative intent to define it.” Id.
    at 294, 113 S.Ct. at 2089. The Court used this inference to
    support its recognition of “judicial authority to shape,
    within limits, the 10b-5 cause of action.” Id. at 293, 113
    41
    S.Ct. at 2089. Similarly, through the cross-referencing
    language of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II, Congress
    acknowledged the private Title VI right of action implied by
    courts, but made no effort to define it more precisely.21
    “That task, it would appear, Congress has left to us.” Id. at
    294, 113 S.Ct. at 2089.
    The legislative history of the ADA lends some support to
    this view. In its discussion of Title III of the ADA, which
    prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and,
    therefore, cross-references the parallel Title II of the 1964
    Civil Rights Act of 1964, the legislative history states: “As
    with other titles of the bill, the Committee intends that
    persons with disabilities have remedies and procedures
    parallel to those available under comparable civil rights
    laws. Thus, if the remedies and procedures change in title
    II of the 1964 Act, . . . they will change identically in this
    title for persons with disabilities.” H.R. Rep. No. 101-485,
    pt. 3, at 66, reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 445, 490
    (emphasis added).
    Furthermore, Congress rejected the minority view of
    certain members that an amendment to Title I, which
    prohibits employment in discrimination and cross-
    references the parallel Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
    1964, should be adopted that would provide expressly for
    only then-existing Title VII remedies. Id., pt. 2, at 167,
    reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 303, 444-45. The minority
    members were concerned that Congress was considering
    the Civil Rights Act of 1990, which would amend Title VII
    to include punitive and compensatory damages as well as
    21. Indeed, as noted above, the legislative history of the ADA makes even
    more plain Congress’s recognition of the judicially implied private right
    of action under Title VI and section 504: “As with section 504, there is
    also a private right of action for persons with disabilities, which includes
    the full panoply of remedies.” H.R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2, at 98,
    reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 303, 381. Furthermore, the Supreme
    Court has noted that section 1003 of the Rehabilitation Act, which was
    enacted in 1986 to abrogate the states’ immunity to suit and which
    referred to remedies at law and in equity “ ‘cannot be read except as a
    validation of Cannon’s holding’ ” that Title VI creates a private right of
    action. Alexander, 
    532 U.S. at 280
    , 
    121 S.Ct. at 1516
     (quoting Franklin,
    
    503 U.S. at 72
    , 
    112 S.Ct. at 1036
    ).
    42
    injunctive relief and backpay, and, by reason of the cross-
    reference in Title I, might be thought to allow such damages
    in cases under Title I of the ADA as well. 
    Id.
     Indeed,
    Representative Sensenbrenner offered an amendment on
    the last day of debate on the ADA that would have replaced
    Title I’s cross-referencing language with express remedial
    provisions permitting only injunctive relief and the award of
    back pay. 136 Cong. Rec. H2599-01, H2612, 
    1990 WL 67606
    . In the ensuing debate, however, many other
    members of Congress expressed the view succinctly
    expressed by Representative Edwards, namely, that “the
    heart of the Americans with Disabilities Act is to give the
    same civil rights protections to persons with disabilities
    that racial minorities and women have.” 
    Id.
     at H2615
    (statement of Rep. Edwards); see also, e.g., 
    id.
     (statement of
    Rep. Schroeder); id. at 2616 (statement of Rep. Glickman);
    id. (statement of Rep. Fish); id. at 2618 (statement of Rep.
    Bartlett); id. at 2620 (statement of Rep. Mazzoli). The
    proposed amendment subsequently was defeated and
    Congress approved the cross-referencing language on the
    theory that persons discriminated against on the basis of a
    disability should receive the same remedies as those
    subject to discrimination on the basis of race or sex.
    Although this legislative history does not reveal explicitly
    Congress’s view of the courts’ role in defining the contours
    of the rights and remedies under the ADA, when taken
    together with Congress’s implicit acknowledgment of the
    judicially created private Title VI right of action and failure
    to define that action further, it supports the inference that
    Congress intended to leave to the courts the task of
    defining the contours of liability—including the existence of
    a right of contribution—under Title VI, section 504 of the
    Rehabilitation Act, and Title II of the ADA. Of course, in
    turning to the question whether a right of contribution is
    within the contours of the private section 504 and Title II
    actions, we must not consider the relative efficiencies or
    equities of the parties’ arguments, but rather must ask how
    the Congresses that enacted the Rehabilitation Act and the
    ADA would have addressed the issue had the private rights
    of action under those acts been included as express
    provisions. See Musick, 
    508 U.S. at 294
    , 113 S.Ct. at 2089-
    90. Unlike the 1934 Congress whose actions in enacting
    43
    section 10(b) were considered in Musick, however, both
    Congresses in this case clearly contemplated the existence
    of some private right of action, even if they did intend to
    leave further definition of that right to the courts. That no
    right to contribution under Title VI had been recognized
    when the Rehabilitation Act and Title II were enacted and
    that Congress did not provide explicitly for such a right
    suggests that Congress did not intend for such a right to
    exist. We do not regard this evidence as conclusive,
    however, but must weigh it along with the other
    considerations that the Musick court identified.
    4.   Application of Musick Analysis
    In holding that a right to contribution was consistent
    with the overall structure of the 1934 act, the Musick Court
    considered express liability provisions of the 1933 and
    1934 acts and found that two of the eight express liability
    provisions in the 1934 act were analogous to Rule 10b-5 in
    structure, purpose, and intent. Because those provisions
    expressly created a right to contribution, the Court held
    that implying such a right in a Rule 10b-5 action was
    consistent with the 1934 act. Id. at 295-97, 113 S.Ct. at
    2090-91. The Court also found relevant the fact that most
    courts of appeals had recognized a right to contribution in
    Rule 10b-5 actions for more than 20 years. Id. at 297-98,
    113 S.Ct. at 2091.
    UMass and Delaware State argue that, in considering
    analogous statutes, we need look no further than section
    503 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title I of the ADA, which
    prohibit discrimination in employment and which, because
    their remedies are derived from Title VII of the Civil Rights
    Act of 1964, do not, after Northwest Airlines, create a right
    of contribution. Temple argues that the purpose of section
    504 and Title II is not simply to prohibit discrimination but
    also, unlike other civil rights laws such as section 503 and
    Title I, to regulate recipients of federal funds and ensure
    that government money is not spent on programs that
    discriminate. Temple suggests that, because section 504
    and Title II are examples of Spending Clause legislation, we
    should look to contract law, not to other civil rights
    44
    statutes, in deciding whether to                allow    a   right   to
    contribution.22 Temple Br. at 26-32.
    In Barnes v. Gorman, 
    536 U.S. 181
    , 
    122 S.Ct. 2097
    (2002), the Supreme Court held that punitive damages are
    not available under Title II and section 504. Relying on the
    contract analogy, the Court stated that “[a] funding
    recipient is generally on notice that it is subject not only to
    those remedies explicitly provided in the relevant
    legislation, but also to those remedies traditionally available
    in suits for breach of contract.” 
    Id. at 187
    , 
    122 S.Ct. at 2101
    . The Court explained its holding in Franklin that
    compensatory damages are available under Title IX of the
    Educational Amendments of 1972, although not expressly
    provided, and its holding in Cannon that injunctive relief is
    similarly available on the grounds that those remedies are
    “forms of relief traditionally available in suits for breach of
    contract.” 
    Id.,
     
    122 S.Ct. at 2101
    . Punitive damages,
    however, are not generally available for breach of contract,
    and the Court, therefore, held that they should not be
    available under Title II and section 504 either. 
    Id.
     at 187-
    88, 
    122 S.Ct. at 2102
    . But Temple argues that contribution
    is different as it generally is available in suits for breach of
    contract. See 12 Samuel Williston, Law of Contracts § 36.14
    (4th ed. 1999).
    The Court in Barnes stated that the contract law analogy
    may apply in Spending Clause cases defining the scope of
    damages remedies, deciding whether a damages remedy is
    available at all, and “defining the scope of conduct for
    22. In support of this contention, Temple cites Chemung Canal Trust Co.
    v. Sovran Bank/Maryland, 
    939 F.2d 12
    , 15-16 (2d Cir. 1991), in which
    the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a defendant in an
    ERISA breach of fiduciary duty case had a right to contribution as a
    matter of federal common law because trust law, on which ERISA was
    based, traditionally allowed contribution. The court found its power to
    recognize such a right in the Supreme Court’s unequivocal statements
    that “ ‘courts are to develop a federal common law of rights and
    obligations under ERISA-regulated plans.’ ” 
    Id. at 16
     (quoting Firestone
    Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 
    489 U.S. 101
    , 110, 
    109 S.Ct. 948
    , 954
    (1989) (internal quotation omitted)). However, inasmuch as Title VI, the
    Rehabilitation Act, and the ADA do not confer a similarly broad common
    law power on the courts, Chemung is of little value to us in this case.
    45
    which funding recipients may be held liable for money
    damages.” 
    Id. at 186-87
    , 
    122 S.Ct. at 2101
    . The principle
    supporting the analogy in each of these types of cases is
    that in Spending Clause cases “ ‘in return for federal funds,
    the [recipients] agree to comply with federally imposed
    conditions.’ ” 
    Id. at 186
    , 
    122 S.Ct. at 2100-01
     (quoting
    Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 
    451 U.S. 1
    , 17,
    
    101 S.Ct. 1531
    , 1540 (1981) (alteration in original)). In
    other words, the task for courts in such cases is to define
    the “contractual” terms, that is, to hold recipients to the
    terms of their bargain but not to impose conditions of
    which the recipient could not fairly have been aware.
    Although we may assume that a defendant in a
    traditional common law breach of contract case would be
    entitled to contribution, we share the sentiment expressed
    by two Justices in the 5-4 Barnes majority, namely that
    “the contract-law analogy may fail to give such helpfully
    clear answers to other questions that may be raised by
    actions for private recovery under Spending Clause
    legislation . . . .” Id. at 191, 
    122 S.Ct. at 2103
     (Souter, J.,
    and O’Connor, J., concurring); see also 
    id. at 186
    , 
    122 S.Ct. at 2101
     (majority opinion) (“[W]e have been careful not
    to imply that all contract-law rules apply to Spending
    Clause legislation . . . .” (emphasis in original)). Unlike the
    Court in Barnes and the cases cited therein, such as
    Franklin and Pennhurst, we are being asked here to
    formulate a right that belongs not to a member of the class
    Congress sought to protect, but that instead benefits solely
    a violator of the duties Congress created for the protection
    of that class.23 This case, therefore, does not fit easily
    within the line of cases relying on the “ ‘traditional
    presumption in favor of any appropriate relief for violation
    of a federal right’ ” in finding implied remedies. 
    Id. at 185
    ,
    
    122 S.Ct. at 400
     (quoting Franklin, 
    503 U.S. at 73
    , 
    112 S.Ct. at 1036
    ) (emphasis in Barnes). Because Barnes used
    the contract-law analogy to determine the scope of
    23. It, of course, should be understood that we are not suggesting that
    Temple violated anything. Rather, if Bowers is to prevail in this action,
    he must carry the burden to establish that it did so. We simply refer to
    Temple as though it is a violator because unless it is the contribution
    issue evaporates.
    46
    “appropriate relief ” under Franklin, that analogy can be of
    only limited use to us here, where the Franklin presumption
    does not apply.
    Thus, in looking for analogous provisions under Musick,
    we look, as did the Musick Court, to other sections of the
    legislation creating the cause of action sued on for
    guidance, not to contract law. To do otherwise, we would
    have to read Musick as conferring a broad common law
    power on the federal courts to create a right of contribution
    in cases involving an implied right of action as long as the
    court could find support for such a right in any other
    analogous area of the law. Musick, however, does not give
    the federal courts such broad power. A court must look not
    to any analogous area of the law, but rather to the intent
    of Congress insofar as the court can distill that intent from
    the structure and language of the legislation as a whole. In
    this case we, therefore, look to the rest of the ADA and the
    Rehabilitation Act for guidance.24
    In particular, we look to other provisions of these
    statutes that are “close in structure, purpose, and intent”
    to the private right of action under Title II and section 504.
    Id. at 295, 113 S.Ct. at 2090. In Musick, the Court found
    that two sections of the 1934 act are close in structure,
    24. Temple vigorously argues that we should not look to Title I of the
    ADA or Title VII, on which Title I of the ADA is based, in deciding
    whether a right to contribution is consistent with the statutory scheme
    as a whole because the purposes behind the two sets of statutes are
    different. Temple Br. at 27-28. We recognize that while Title VII is clearly
    remedial civil rights legislation designed to protect individuals, Title VI
    has the twin goals of protecting individuals and of regulating the use of
    federal funds in public programs. See Cannon, 
    441 U.S. at 704
    , 
    99 S.Ct. at 1961
    . Temple urges us to ignore Title VII and to focus instead on
    whether a right to contribution is consistent with the purpose of Title VI
    to regulate recipients of federal funds. Whatever the merits of Temple’s
    argument that a right to contribution is consistent with that goal, we are
    unwilling to ignore the twin goal of Title VI to protect individuals from
    discrimination in public programs. Moreover, we must not ask whether
    a right to contribution is desirable as a policy matter, but whether the
    Congresses that enacted Title II and section 504 would have provided for
    such a right if they had created a private right of action. Musick, 
    508 U.S. at 294
    , 113 S.Ct. at 2089-90. For both of these reasons, we turn for
    guidance to Title I of the ADA and to Title VII.
    47
    purpose, and intent to the Rule 10b-5 action for two
    reasons: (1) they target the precise dangers that are the
    focus of section 10(b) and are motivated by the same intent
    to deter fraud in the securities market and to ensure full
    disclosure of material information; and (2) they impose
    liability on defendants who stand in a position most similar
    to 10b-5 defendants for the sake of assessing whether they
    should be entitled to contribution. 
    508 U.S. at 295-96
    , 113
    S.Ct. at 2090-91. Looking to the other liability provisions of
    the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, it is clear that none are
    as close in structure, purpose, and intent to the private
    section 504 and Title II actions as the two 1934 act
    provisions used by the Court in Musick are to Rule 10b-5.
    Yet, because those provisions closest in structure, purpose,
    and intent to section 504 and Title II and the legislative
    history and structure of the statutes do not suggest that
    Congress would have created a right to contribution had it
    created an explicit private right of action for violations of
    either section 504 or Title II, we hold that there is no right
    to contribution under either of those provisions.
    Among the declared purposes of the Rehabilitation Act of
    1973 was authorization of programs to develop and
    implement comprehensive and continuing state plans for
    meeting the need for providing vocational rehabilitation
    services to disabled persons “and to provide such services
    for the benefit of such individuals,” Rehabilitation Act of
    1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, § 2(1) (1973) (emphasis added);
    to “initiate and expand services to groups of handicapped
    individuals . . . who have been underserved in the past,” id.
    § 2(6); and to “promote and expand employment
    opportunities in the public and private sectors for
    handicapped individuals and to place such individuals in
    employment,” id. § 2(8). The statement of purpose was
    amended in 1978, simultaneously with the amendments
    creating private rights of action by cross-reference to read:
    “The purpose of this Act is to develop and implement,
    through research, training, services, and the guarantee of
    equal opportunity, comprehensive and coordinated
    programs of vocational rehabilitation and independent
    living.” Pub. L. No. 95-602, § 122(a)(1) (1978).
    To further this purpose, Title V of the Rehabilitation Act
    prohibits certain entities from discriminating against
    48
    persons with disabilities. Section 501 requires all executive
    branch agencies and departments to submit affirmative
    action plans for the hiring and advancement of disabled
    persons and prohibits discrimination on the basis of
    disability in federal employment. 
    29 U.S.C. § 791
    . Section
    503 requires all federal contractors to take affirmative
    action to employ and advance in employment qualified
    persons with disabilities. 
    Id.
     § 793. Finally, section 504
    prohibits any program or activity receiving federal funds
    from discriminating against persons with disabilities. Id.
    § 794. From 1973 to 1978, the federal courts generally
    began to recognize a private right of action under section
    504, but not under section 501, while the courts were split
    on the question whether a private right of action existed
    under section 503. See Smith v. United States Postal Serv.,
    
    742 F.2d 257
    , 259 (6th Cir. 1984). In 1978, Congress
    amended the act to create private remedies for violations of
    sections 501 and 504 in order to clarify the confusion in
    the lower courts. 
    Id.
     Congress, however, did not create a
    right of action under section 503 with the 1978
    amendments, and every court of appeals facing the
    question since has held that an implied right of action does
    not exist under that provision. See 2 Americans With
    Disabilities: Practice and Compliance Manual § 8:272
    (2003) (compiling cases from every court of appeals).
    Section 501 is, therefore, the only other liability provision
    in the Rehabilitation Act that is even arguably similar to
    section 504. While the analogy is not perfect, the two
    sections share the basic goal of protecting persons with
    disabilities from discrimination, much in the same way as
    the statutes at issue in Musick shared the common goal of
    deterring fraud and ensuring full disclosure of material
    information. Furthermore, defendants in a section 501
    action “stand in a position” similar to defendants in a
    section 504 action in that the two sections impose direct
    liability on defendants for their own acts as opposed to
    derivative liability. See Musick, 
    508 U.S. at 296
    , 113 S.Ct.
    at 2090. But section 501 does not provide for a right to
    contribution, nor does any court appear to have recognized
    a right to contribution in a section 501 action.25 Indeed,
    25. Of course, the circumstances in which a court might be asked to
    recognize such a right in a section 501 case are not clear, inasmuch as
    the United States is likely to be the only defendant in the case.
    49
    there is no provision of the Rehabilitation Act that appears
    to contemplate the existence of a right to contribution.
    More importantly, section 501 rights and remedies are
    derived from Title VII, which, under Northwest Airlines,
    does not create a right of contribution. Thus, inasmuch as
    Congress took no action in 1978, when it created private
    rights of action by cross-reference under sections 501 and
    504, to create a right to contribution, and because no such
    right explicitly or implicitly exists in section 501 or any
    other section of the Rehabilitation Act, we are unable to
    infer that Congress in 1978 would have created such a
    right had it crafted a more explicit private remedial scheme
    for violations of section 504. Thus, we reach our conclusion
    that there is no right to contribution under section 504 of
    the Rehabilitation Act.
    Similarly, nothing in the ADA counsels in favor of
    recognizing a right to contribution for violations of Title II.
    The ADA’s goals are familiar: (1) to provide a clear and
    comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of
    discrimination against individuals with disabilities; (2) to
    provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards
    addressing      discrimination    against   individuals   with
    disabilities; (3) to ensure that the federal government plays
    a central role in enforcing the standards established on
    behalf of individuals with disabilities; and (4) to invoke the
    sweep of congressional authority, including the power to
    enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and to regulate
    commerce, in order to address the major areas of
    discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.
    
    42 U.S.C. § 12101
    (b). Title I of the ADA prohibits
    discrimination in employment and provides that rights and
    remedies available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
    1964 are available under Title I. 
    Id.
     § 12117. Title II
    prohibits discrimination by a “public entity.” Id. § 12132.
    Rights and remedies available under section 504 of the
    Rehabilitation Act are available under Title II. Id. § 12133.
    Finally, Title III prohibits discrimination in public
    accommodations. Id. § 12182. Rights and remedies
    available under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are
    available under Title III. Id. § 12188.
    50
    Although all three titles have similar purposes, that is, to
    eliminate discrimination in the sphere each one covers,
    Title I is more analogous to Title II than is Title III because
    Title I defendants stand in a position similar to Title II
    defendants for reasons comparable to those we discussed
    above with respect to defendants under sections 501 and
    504 of the Rehabilitation Act. On the other hand, Title III
    defendants cannot be liable for money damages. Id.
    § 12188(a); Wander v. Kaus, 
    304 F.3d 856
    , 858 (9th Cir.
    2002). Title I does not provide for a right to contribution
    nor does any court appear to have implied such a right.
    Furthermore, under Northwest Airlines, contribution is not
    available under Title VII. Even were we to consider Title III
    as another possibly analogous provision, neither Title III
    nor Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 appears ever to
    have been held to create a right to contribution. Thus, we
    reach our conclusion that there is no right to contribution
    under Title II of the ADA. We, therefore, will reverse the
    district court’s orders of November 7, 2001, and March 6,
    2002, appealed at No. 02-3236, with respect to UMass and
    Delaware and remand the matter to the district court to
    dismiss the contribution claims against them under both
    section 504 and Title II.
    We close with a final observation. In this case, we hold
    that Temple cannot have a right of contribution from
    UMass or Delaware State and, as Bowers has not sued
    them directly and there are no other claims pending against
    them, they will be dismissed from this action. But at this
    time we cannot be certain as to how the proceedings will go
    forward (beyond the case being dismissed as to all three
    third-party defendants) and we, therefore, cannot know
    whether Bowers will recover judgments against the
    defendants and, if so, whether the damages recovered will
    be duplicative and, indeed, how the district court will
    submit the case to the jury or, in the absence of a jury trial,
    itself calculate damages if Bowers establishes that the
    defendants are liable. Thus, we want to make clear that we
    do not intend to bar a party satisfying a judgment from
    seeking reimbursement in part from other judgment
    debtors. It may be that the district court will avoid the
    possibility that recovery against defendants will overlap by
    separating Bowers’s case against the various defendants so
    51
    that damages against a liable defendant are ascertained
    individually. But we cannot be sure that this can or will be
    done, though surely it would be desirable to do so. In any
    event, we do not intend by this opinion to preclude the
    district court from entertaining arguments and granting
    relief to a party satisfying a judgment for which more than
    one defendant is responsible by allowing it to make a
    recovery from other defendants on some principle provided
    it is consistent with this opinion.
    IV.   CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons we will dismiss the appeals of
    Iowa at No. 01-4492, Memphis at No. 01-4226, and UMass
    at No. 02-1789. We will reverse the orders of the district
    court of November 7, 2001, and March 6, 2002, in No. 02-
    3236 insofar as the court finds that Temple has alleged a
    valid claim for contribution against the third-party
    defendants UMass and Delaware State. We will remand the
    case to the district court for further proceedings to carry
    out the directions in this opinion. In particular, Temple
    should refile its notice of dismissal as to Memphis and the
    district court shall dismiss the third-party complaints
    against UMass and Delaware State. Costs will be taxed in
    favor of UMass and Delaware State against Temple in No.
    02-3236 but not in No. 02-1789. As between Iowa and
    Bowers costs shall be taxed in favor of Bowers. As between
    Memphis and Temple, no costs shall be taxed on this
    appeal at this time but Memphis may move in the district
    court for costs and counsel fees.
    A True Copy:
    Teste:
    Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-3236P

Citation Numbers: 346 F.3d 402

Filed Date: 8/20/2003

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023

Authorities (48)

Parella v. Retirement Board of the Rhode Island Employees' ... , 173 F.3d 46 ( 1999 )

Martin v. State of Kansas , 190 F.3d 1120 ( 1999 )

ei-dupont-de-nemours-and-company-a-delaware-corporation-v-rhone-poulenc , 269 F.3d 187 ( 2001 )

tai-kwan-cureton-leatrice-shaw-each-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all , 198 F.3d 107 ( 1999 )

fed-carr-cas-p-83829-ef-operating-corporation-ta-west-motor-freight , 993 F.2d 1046 ( 1993 )

chemung-canal-trust-company-as-trustee-of-the-fairway-spring-company-inc , 939 F.2d 12 ( 1991 )

William Morrison Smith v. United States Postal Service , 742 F.2d 257 ( 1984 )

Dorothy Kovacevich v. Kent State University , 224 F.3d 806 ( 2000 )

Bossier Parish School Board v. Ura Bernard Lemon , 370 F.2d 847 ( 1967 )

Jeffrey D. Lavia v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ... , 224 F.3d 190 ( 2000 )

robert-a-georgine-laverne-winbun-of-the-estate-of-joseph-e-winbun , 83 F.3d 610 ( 1996 )

Carol Rae Cooper Foulds v. Texas Tech University , 171 F.3d 279 ( 1999 )

david-venen-v-honorable-charles-c-sweet-individually-and-in-his-capacity , 758 F.2d 117 ( 1985 )

united-states-v-tabor-court-realty-corp-raymond-colliery-co-inc , 943 F.2d 335 ( 1991 )

Doug Wander v. Jack S. Kaus Irene B. Kaus , 304 F.3d 856 ( 2002 )

United States v. Charles Lester Vanness , 85 F.3d 661 ( 1996 )

Edwin Kennedy v. National Juvenile Detention Association ... , 187 F.3d 690 ( 1999 )

united-states-of-america-ex-rel-ronald-e-long-appelleecross-appellant , 173 F.3d 890 ( 1999 )

Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n , 974 F. Supp. 459 ( 1997 )

Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n , 9 F. Supp. 2d 460 ( 1998 )

View All Authorities »