With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding plaintiffs had stated a claim for intentional discrimination under the ada and  504
B: holding ada claim was discharged
C: holding that punitive damages may not be awarded  in suits brought under  202 of the ada and  504 of the rehabilitation act
D: holding that in a discrimination case plaintiff must prove that firing was a result of intentional discrimination
A.