3 ¶ 67). He alleges that ordering his physical presence at the hearing “clearly illustrates the said Defendant(s) disregard for the Plaintiffs exculpatory medical problems and debilitating pain and suffering he was experiencing ... further illuminates the said Defendants) blatant disregard for the Plaintiffs physical disability/handicap .... ” (Docket Entry 3 ¶ 67). Plaintiff asserts that as a result, he suffered “unnecessary or intentional pain and suffering and emotional trauma .... ” (Docket Entry. 3 ¶ 94). The Court infers from the complaint that Plaintiff is alleging Defendants Armstrong and Marino intentionally discriminated against him by displaying deliberate indifference to his disability. See S.H. ex rel. Durrell v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 729 F.3d 248, 263 (3d Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). The Third Circuit has adopted a two-part test
holding that in a discrimination case plaintiff must prove that firing was a result of intentional discrimination recognizing standards to determine discrimination are the same under the ra and the ada holding plaintiffs had stated a claim for intentional discrimination under the ada and  504 holding plaintiffs bringing claims under the ada may establish intentional discrimination with a showing of deliberate indifference holding that the same standards apply to claims under the ada and under the rehabilitation act