Clasen also asserts rights under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. For most of Clasen`s assertions under these statutes, it refers to most of the above facts. Clasen also argues that the defendants retaliated against him by announcing IEP meetings at times when he was unable to attend. The minutes show that the accused worked with Clasen to try to find a consensual time frame for organizing IEP team meetings. The teachers of the defendant district have a negotiated contract that prevents defendants from attending meetings after 4 p.m.m. As a result, IEP meetings generally do not begin after 4 p.m.m. As a result, there were challenges in planning IEP meetings with M.S. Clasen`s parents who wanted to meet in the evenings and on weekends, which the accused`s staff could not always do. The parties struggled to find agree dates for the IEP meetings in the spring of 2016.

M.S.`s parents objected to the May 16, 2016 IEP meeting because Clasen could not arrive in time. The accused informed the parents that the meeting could not be moved, but that the parents could arrive too late to participate. The parties agree that the first three elements of discrimination exist in this case. M.S. is a student with a disability who is enrolled in a public school and receives special educational services. It is indisputable that the defendants received federal financial assistance for the management of these specialized pedagogy services. The main question in this case is whether Clasen is pronounced prima facie with respect to the fourth element: that the special education program M.S. Clasen discriminates because the M.S.

defendants discriminated in eight ways: (1) exclusion of mathematics and language skills in mainstream education without finding housing for their disability; (2) has not developed an appropriate response plan with appropriate assessment by competent staff; (3) the non-distribution of behavioural measures among all staff; (4) failure to consistently implement the evolution of developed behavioural changes; (5) Placing M.S. in an FAA classroom in a building that she would not otherwise visit if she were not disabled; (6) remove M.S. from the school she would attend without her disability; (7) treat them in a derogatory manner because of their disability; and (8) retaliation against M.S. and her parents for defending the rights of M.S. Padilla ex rel. Padilla v. Sch. Dist. Number one at City and Cty. by Denver, Colo., 233 F.3d 1268, 1270 (10th Cir.

2000) (internal quotations and omitted quotations). . The Court acknowledges – and the parties do not dispute – that Clasen engaged in a protected activity in defending M.S.`s rights under IDEA. The first element is therefore filled. With respect to the second element, Clasen asserts that she suffered a negative act when the accused removed M.S. more from the general culture classroom than Clasen required. It also asserts that the defendant`s decision to transfer M.S. to the faa classroom in a separate building was an adverse measure. Assuming that the defendant`s actions within the meaning of this motion were prejudicial, Clasen did not demonstrate a causal link between his protected activity and the defendant`s negative reaction. Accordingly, the court found that Clasen did not justify a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Hollonbeck v.

U.S. Olympic Comm., 513 F.3d 1191, 1194 (10th Cir 2008). Fitzgerald v. Corr Corp. of Am., 403 F.3d 1134, 1144 (10th cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted) (addition). On the basis of the FBA, a behavioural intervention plan („GDP“) was put in place for M.S. defendants who had previously informed Clasen of GDP in writing, but did not obtain their agreement.