With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Cornell's favor, I cannot hold that it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would prove the existence of conscious-shocking behavior by the defendants. 15 . Section 12131(2) of Title II of the ADA defines “qualified individual with a disability” as an “individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications ... meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.” 16 . The Third Circuit has held that the ADA grants standing to entities like Cornell that have a close association with disabled persons to assert disability discrimination claims under the ADA. See Addiction Specialists, Inc. v. Twp. of Hampton, 411 F.3d 399, 408 (3d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Innovative Health Sys., Inc. v. City of White

A: holding the ada and the rehabilitation act applicable
B: holding that the same standards apply to claims under the ada and under the rehabilitation act
C: holding that a proposed methadone treatment center has standing under both the ada and the rehabilitation act
D: holding that neither the ada nor the rehabilitation act applies to prison employment
C.