of whether regulations passed pursuant to § 602 could create a federal right actionable under § 1983; South Camden, 145 F.Supp.2d at 516-20, the district court applied the Wilder-Blessing analysis and determined that the injunction could be up held under § 1983. South Camden, 145 F.Supp.2d at 524-49; see generally Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Assn., 496 U.S. 498, 509, 110 S.Ct. 2510, 2517, 110 L.Ed.2d 455 (1990); Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340, 117 S.Ct. 1353, 137 L.Ed.2d 569 (1997). See also Frederick L. v. Dep't. of Public Welfare, 157 F.Supp.2d 509, 533-34 (E.D.Pa.2001) (actions brought under Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act were permissible under § 1983); Access Living of Metro. Chicago v. Chicago Transit Auth., No. 00C0770, 2001 WL 492473 (N.D.Ill. May 9, 2001) (<HOLDING>). Lucero v. Detroit Pub. Sch., 160 F.Supp.2d
holding that in a discrimination case plaintiff must prove that firing was a result of intentional discrimination holding plaintiffs had stated a claim for intentional discrimination under the ada and  504 holding ada claim was discharged holding that punitive damages may not be awarded  in suits brought under  202 of the ada and  504 of the rehabilitation act holding plaintiffs bringing claims under the ada may establish intentional discrimination with a showing of deliberate indifference