subjected to discrimination” by a federally funded entity, 29 U.S.C. § 794.) In the education context, it has been interpreted to guarantee the same “free appropriate public education” required by the IDEA. Nieves-Marquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108, 125 (1st Cir.2003) (both '“statutes may be available to redress particular denials of a free appropriate public education,” and “apply similar standards for substantive relief’); Ms. S. ex rel. L.S. v. Scarborough Sch. Comm., 366 F.Supp.2d 98, 99 n. 2 (D.Me.2005). Despite this similarity, however, the First Circuit has stated that “it may be that § 504 claims require some showing of deliberate indifference not required by IDEA.” Nieves-Marquez, 353 F.3d at 125 n. 17 (citing Sellers by Sellers v. Sch. Bd., 141 F.3d 524, 529 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted)). In this case, however,
holding that a bad faith claim is a tort holding that the term in fact within the context of the exclusion here should be read to require either a final adjudication including a judicial adjudication or at a minimum at least some evidentiary proof holding that either bad faith or gross misjudgment should be shown before a  504 violation can be made out at least in the context of education of handicapped children holding that bad faith andor prejudice must be shown by clear and convincing evidence holding that the district court should consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the patentee acted in subjective bad faith and should consider whether circumstantial evidence would support an inference of bad faith