California OAH special education order · December 20, 2013
Order Granting Sutter County Superintendent of Schools' Motion to Dismiss
OAH Case No. 2013120207 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH dismissed Student's ADA, Section 504, and Section 1983 claims against the Sutter County Superintendent of Schools because OAH has no jurisdiction over those claims; the IDEA issues proceed.
This case went to decision
Student v. Yuba City Unified School District et al. (consolidated): Yuba City Unified and Sutter County schools prevail; parent cannot choose the nurse who provides a student's IEP nursing services. (2014)
Summary
Student's complaint alleged that the District and the Sutter County Superintendent of Schools (SCSOS) denied Student a FAPE in violation of the IDEA, and also violated the ADA, Section 504, and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. SCSOS filed an unopposed partial motion to dismiss the non-IDEA claims. OAH granted the motion because its jurisdiction is limited to matters about identification, evaluation, placement, and FAPE. The remaining issues will proceed as scheduled.
Why it matters
OAH due process hearings can only decide IDEA and related state special education claims. Families who want to pursue disability discrimination or civil rights claims under the ADA, Section 504, or Section 1983 must bring them in another forum.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)
- Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)
- Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026
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 Matter of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2013120207
v. ORDER GRANTING SUTTER
COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
YUBA CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL SCHOOLS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
DISTRICT.
On December 11, 2013, the Sutter County Superintendent of Schools (SCSOS) filed a partial motion to dismiss, seeking dismissal of that portion of each of Student’s claims alleging that SCSOS violated Student’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. (ADA)), Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
§ 701 et seq. (Section 504)) and 42 United States Code section 1983 (Section 1983). No opposition has been received.
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 the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) is limited to these matters. (Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026, 1028-1029.)
DISCUSSION
Student’s complaint alleges that District and SCSOS, by their actions in not providing a FAPE to Student, not only denied Student his rights under the IDEA, but also under the ADA, Section 504 and Section 1983. OAH does not have jurisdiction to hear claims brought under the ADA, Section 504 or Section 1983. Accordingly, SCSOS’s motion to dismiss those portions of Student’s claims arising under the ADA, Section 504 or Section 1983 is granted.
ORDER
1. Sutter County Superintendent of Schools’ motion to dismiss those portions of
Student’s claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and 42 United States Code section 1983 is granted.
2. The matter will proceed as scheduled as to the remaining issues.
Dated: December 20, 2013 /s/
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings