Case Name: Pam KOEHLER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ARKANSAS REHABILITATION SERVICES, Randy Laverty, Commissioner, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-29
Citations: 619 F. App'x 563
Docket Number: No. 15-1259
Parties: Pam KOEHLER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ARKANSAS REHABILITATION SERVICES, Randy Laverty, Commissioner, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, BYE, GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 619
Pages: 563–564

Head Matter:
Pam KOEHLER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ARKANSAS REHABILITATION SERVICES, Randy Laverty, Commissioner, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-1259.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 28, 2015.
Filed: Oct. 29, 2015.
Alfonzo T. Young, Plymouth, WI, pro se.
Wisconsin Dept of Justice, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before WOLLMAN, BYE, GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Pam Koehler appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment on her retaliation claim under the Rehabilitation Act, which she brought against her former employer the Arkansas Rehabilitation Services (ARS). ARS assists individuals with disabilities. ARS terminated Koehler's employment after she referred a client who had been denied services to a federally funded client-assistance program, which ARS viewed as a "complaint." Koehler provided no evidence that she believed that her employer denied this client services based on the client's disability. Therefore, we agree with the district court that Koehler did not engage in protected activity. See Hill v. Walker, 737 F.3d 1209, 1216 (8th Cir.2013) (where plaintiff alleged disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act, decisions interpreting either act were applicable and interchangable to claims under each statute); Lenzen v. Workers Comp. Reinsurance Ass'n, 705 F.3d 816, 821 (8th Cir.2013) (to establish prima facie case of retaliation under the ADA, plaintiff must show that she engaged in protected activity based on reasonable good faith belief that agent of employer was engaged in disability discrimination and suffered adverse employment action causally linked to that protected conduct); see also 29 U.S.C. § 794 (prohibiting any program receiving federal financial assistance from denying benefits to otherwise qualified individual "solely by reason of her or his disability").
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R.. 47B.
. The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.