California OAH special education order · August 23, 2013
Order Granting District's Motion to Dismiss Issue Two of Student's Complaint in Case Number 2013080367
OAH Case No. 2013080367, 2013040771 · ALJ Robert Helfand
OAH dismissed Student's claim that RCOE's late assessments and IEP meeting violated the ADA, Section 504, and state civil rights laws, because OAH has no jurisdiction over those claims.
This case went to decision
Student v. Riverside County Office of Education: Riverside County Office of Education must seek locked residential placement and provide 39 hours of speech therapy for juvenile hall student. (2014)
Summary
RCOE moved to dismiss the second issue in Student's August 2013 complaint. That issue alleged that RCOE's failure to timely complete agreed-upon assessments and hold an IEP meeting violated the ADA, Section 504, and state civil rights laws. OAH granted the motion because its jurisdiction is limited to IDEA matters: identification, evaluation, placement, and FAPE. Claims under Section 504, the ADA, and civil rights laws fall outside that limit, so the rest of the consolidated matter will go forward as scheduled.
Why it matters
OAH due process hearings can only decide IDEA and state special education claims. Parents who want to pursue disability discrimination claims under the ADA, Section 504, or civil rights laws must bring them in another forum, and should frame late-assessment or IEP-timeline problems as IDEA procedural violations.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)
- Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a)
- Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026
- 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)
Topics
Full text of the order
Published text of the OAH order. Page headers and numbers from the original PDF have been dropped.
BEFORE THE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Consolidated Matters of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2013080367
v.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF
EDUCATION,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF OAH CASE NO. 2013040771
EDUCATION,
v.
ORDER GRANTING DISTRICT’S
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. MOTION TO DISMISS ISSUE TWO OF
STUDENT’S COMPLAINT IN CASE
NUMBER 2013080367
On April 16, 2013, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) a Request for Due Process Hearing (complaint) in OAH case number 2013040771 (First Case), naming, inter alia, the Riverside County Office of Education (RCOE).
On August 5, 2013, Student filed a complaint in OAH case number 2013080367 (Second Case), again naming RCOE.
On August 12, 2013, RCOE filed a Motion to Consolidate the First Case with the Second Case. Student has not filed an opposition or otherwise responded to RCOE’s motion.
On August 21, 2013, OAH granted RCOE’s motion to consolidate the First and Second cases.
On August 15, 2013, RCOE filed with OAH a motion to dismiss the second issue of Student’s complaint in OAH case number 2013080367 on grounds that OAH lacks jurisdiction over the issue.
APPLICABLE LAW
The purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq.) is to “ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education” (FAPE), and to protect the rights of those children and their parents. (20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C); see also Ed. Code, § 56000.) A party has the right to present a complaint “with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.” (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6); Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a) [party has a right to present a complaint regarding matters involving proposal or refusal to initiate or change the identification, assessment, or educational placement of a child; the provision of a FAPE to a child; the refusal of a parent or guardian to consent to an assessment of a child;
or a disagreement between a parent or guardian and the public education agency as to the availability of a program appropriate for a child, including the question of financial responsibility].) The jurisdiction of OAH is limited to these matters. (Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026, 1028-1029.) Thus, OAH does not have jurisdiction to entertain claims based on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.) or Section 1983 of Title 42 United States Code.
DISCUSSION
Student’s second issue is as follows: “Whether the actions of RCOE, in failing to timely complete agreed-upon assessments of [Student] and convene an IEP meeting within the time period established by law violated the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act], Section 504 [of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973], and State civil rights laws.” Here, Student is alleging claims outside the jurisdiction of OAH as discussed above.
ORDER
The District’s Motion to Dismiss the second issue of Student’s complaint in OAH case number 2013080367 is GRANTED. The matter will proceed as scheduled against the remaining parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 23, 2013 /s/
ROBERT HELFAND
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings