Are you the parent of a youngster with a studying disability or autism that feels like unique education personnel are retaliating against, you for your advocacy? Has your youngster been suspended by the college, simply because you have complained about your child's remedy? This post will be discussing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, retaliation, and how you can use the facts in this post to prove retaliation.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is a federal anti discrimination law and applies to any entity, that receives federal funding which all public schools do. The youngster can't be discriminated against primarily based on their disability. This law also prohibits retaliation primarily based on a individual becoming involved in a protected activity (advocacy is thought of a protected activity). The Workplace of Civil Rights is the federal agency that enforces Section 504. Any retaliation complaints could be filed with them, or could be taken straight to court.
The Workplace of Civil Rights has created a five component test to decide whether or not a college district has engaged in prohibited retaliation. You can use these concerns to assistance you prove your retaliation case. These five concerns are:
1. Has the parent/student engaged in a protected activity? Protected activities could be filing a state complaint, filing a due approach complaint, filing a lawsuit in court. Any kind of advocacy could be thought of a protected activity.
2. Was the district conscious of the protected activity? This would not be difficult to prove, specifically if the retaliation is primarily based on filing a complaint, or a due approach hearing.
3. Was the parent/student subjected to an adverse action? This could be any kind of action that would harm the youngster or parent. Examples of adverse reaction may well consist of: suspension or expulsion of the youngster, suspension from participating in extracurricular activities, or stopping parents from getting into college grounds-in other words banning them from college home. This appears to me to be a brand new tactic that is occurring across the USA parents becoming banned from getting into the college, due to their advocacy. This is a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, in my opinion.
Yet another adverse action I hear about really normally is college districts calling youngster protective solutions against parents! A pal of mine had this take place to her simply because she refused to choose her youngster up at college, when the college believed she really should! Kid protective solutions cleared my pal and even stood up to the college district, for my pal. Unless the college has genuine proof of abuse this action can be observed as retaliation!
4. Will a neutral third celebration determine that there is a causal connection or connection among the protected activity and the adverse action? Is there enough proof to raise an inference that the protected activity was probably the purpose for the adverse action? How close in time was the adverse action to the advocacy?
5. Can the college district provide a genuine, nondiscriminatory purpose for the adverse action, which a neutral third celebration will not take into account to be pre textual? In other words if the college district can prove that the action was accomplished for other than retaliation then they will win the retaliation claim. For instance: If your child's IEP states that he or she can be suspended for behavior, and they are suspended just after your advocacy, it would be a challenging job to prove that the advocacy is what triggered the suspension. But if your youngster has a behavior program, which does not consist of suspensions it would be uncomplicated to prove that a college suspension is linked to your advocacy.
Use the facts in this post to assistance you determine if you can prove retaliation, to OCR or in court. Don't forget the retaliation will have to have occurred just after a protected activity-advocacy-will have to be close in time to the protected activity-and will have to be connected to the protected activity. Fantastic luck!