— and only if — the plaintiff shows discriminatory intent. See, e.g., Nieves-Marquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108, 126 (1st Cir.2003) (“[P]rivate individuals may recover compensatory damages under § 504 and Title II only for intentional discrimination.”); Delano-Pyle v. Victoria County, Tex., 302 F.3d 567, 574 (5th Cir.2002) (“A plaintiff asserting a private cause of action for violations of the ADA or the RA may only recover compensatory damages upon a showing of intentional discrimination.”); Powers v. MJB Acquisition Corp., 184 F.3d 1147, 1152-53 (10th Cir.1999) (district court committed reversible error in failing to instruct jury that plaintiff needed to show intentional discrimination to recover compensatory damages); Ferguson v. City of Phoenix, 157 F.3d 668, 674 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Wood v. President and Trustees of Spring Hill
holding that title ii of the ada is not applicable to the federal government holding that a plaintiff cannot bring an action under 42 usc  1983 against a state official in her individual capacity to vindicate rights created by title ii of the ada or section 504 of the rehabilitation act holding that title ii does not apply to the states holding that compensatory dam ages are not available under title ii or  504 absent a showing of discriminatory intent recognizing there is some confusion among the circuit courts as to the availability of damages under  504 of the rehabilitation act and without expressing an opinion on the matter noting that courts generally agree damages are available for violations of  504