With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of New York, 1 F.3d 96, 105 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 472, 126 L.Ed.2d 423 (1993) (42 U.S.C. § 5310 insufficiently comprehensive to infer congressional intent that § 1983 actions were precluded); Board of Educ. v. Leininger, 822 F.Supp. 516, 531-32 (N.D.Ill.1993) (Vocational Education Act, National School Lunch Act, and Child Nutrition Act insufficiently comprehensive to infer congressional preclusion). Whether the Rehabilitation Act contains a remedial scheme sufficiently comprehensive so that we may infer a congressional intent to displace § 1983 remedies has been a dispute for some time. There is no precedent on point in the Eleventh Circuit, on either the first or second of the Wilder exceptions. Bodiford v. State of Alabama, 854 F.Supp. 886, 893 (M.D.Ala.1994) (<HOLDING>) (citing Manecke v. School Bd. of Pinellas

A: holding that post2001 new york was clearly subject to suit under section 504 of the rehabilitation act
B: holding  504 of the rehabilitation act does not require equivalent benefits for different disabilities
C: holding rehabilitation act applicable
D: recognizing conflicting eleventh circuit authority on whether  504 of the rehabilitation act could serve as the basis for a  1983 laws action
D.