of his disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794; that defendant failed to provide, or to ensure Arshad was provided, appropriate special education services, in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.; that defendant breached its contract with her by failing to uphold its assurances and promises that the school and its instructors were equipped, trained and qualified to educate Arshad with his disa , 697 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (defense of exemption under a remedial statute must be specifically pled or will be waived); see also Vore v. Colonial Manor Nursing Center, No. 3-03-CV-1660-BD(P), 2004 WL 2348229, at 3 (N.D.Tex. Oct. 19, 2004) (<HOLDING>). Defendant did not plead the religious
holding that as title vi is a remedial statute the zone of interests to be protected  must be construed broadly recognizing that cjonsistent with the remedial purposes of the ada a charge of employment discrimination must be construed with the utmost liberality  holding that the social security act is remedial and needs to be construed liberally recognizing that umuim statute is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed recognizing statutory abrogation of rule of liberality in workers compensation claims