The legal definition of retaliation is located in the implementing regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act at 28 CFR 36.206.
Office for Civil Rights (OCR), U.S. Department of Education, issues public guidance on retaliation as a violation of Federal law. The OCR Letter, issued on April 24, 2013, clarifies the basic principles of retaliation law and describes OCR's methods of enforcement.
New! Listen and Watch Pete's video about the case AC v. Shelby County On April 1, 2013, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a decision about a child with Type 1 diabetes and retaliation under Section 504. The case focused on false allegations of child abuse by the school principal.
Linda Sturm v. Rocky Hill Bd of Ed, U. S. District Court of Connecticut. Special ed teacher can bring suit against the school district who did not renew her contract because Section 504 includes anti-retaliation provisions and courts have extended protection against retaliation for those who advocate for the disabled. (2005)
v. Garst: Analysis by Pete Wright. In a January 2, 2001 decision, the U.
S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed a lawsuit filed by three
special education teachers against the principal of their school. The teachers
complained "about Garst's administrative decisions and actions to his superiors
and others, including the media" over the needs of special education students.”
"Enemies List" Targets Parents. Describes efforts by the Association of California School Administrators to compile a list of parents and parent groups who were critical of schools or who questioned special education decisions.
Awards $600,000 to Parents of Handicapped Child. Jury found that school district
failed to provide free appropriate public education and retaliated against parents
who attempted to advocate for their child.
AC v. Shelby County (6th Cir. 2013) - In 2013, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a pro-child 504 ruling in a retaliation case where the principal filed "false" child abuse allegations against the parent. The principal told DCS that the parents "are just looking for a lawsuit" and that they did not care that "the child could die at school."
For a retaliation case to proceed, the Court must find that the school retaliated against the parents for asserting their rights under Section 504. After the US District Court dismissed the case, the Sixth Circuit reversed, found that the District Court misunderstood the law, and remanded the case back for a trial by jury. The original decision as issued by the Court is located here. The Wrightslaw reformatted version with bold highlights inserted is located here.