California OAH special education order · December 23, 2013
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issues
OAH Case No. 2013120207, 2013110182 · ALJ Adeniyi Ayoade
OAH dismissed Student's ADA, Section 504, and Section 1983 claims against Yuba City Unified because OAH's jurisdiction is limited to IDEA special education matters; remaining issues proceed as scheduled.
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
OAH had already dismissed Student's ADA, Section 504, and Section 1983 claims against the Sutter County Superintendent of Schools, but that ruling did not cover District because District was not part of that motion. District then filed its own unopposed motion to dismiss the same claims as to itself. OAH granted the motion, explaining that its jurisdiction covers only IDEA matters relating to identification, evaluation, placement, and FAPE. The case will go forward on the remaining IDEA issues.
Why it matters
OAH cannot decide disability discrimination or civil rights claims under the ADA, Section 504, or Section 1983. Families who want to pursue those claims need a different forum, while their IDEA claims can still go forward at OAH.
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 Consolidated Matters of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2013120207
v.
YUBA CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT AND SUTTER COUNTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
YUBA CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH CASE NO. 2013110182
DISTRICT,
v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS ISSUES
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On December 20, 2013, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) granted Sutter County Superintendent of Schools’ (County) motion to dismiss all issues in Student’s Case based on the allegations that County 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) for lack of jurisdiction. OAH granted the request as to County only, but not as to District because it was not a party to that motion.
On December 13, 2013, in its own Motion to Dismiss Issues (motion), District has requested that all issues relating to any allegations that District violated the ADA, Section 504, and Section 1983 should be dismisses against it as well, because the issues remain outside of OAH’s limited jurisdiction. No response or opposition has been received from Student, or County.
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.)
DISCUSSION
Student’s complaint alleges that District and County through various actions denied him a FAPE under the IDEA, as well as 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, District’s motion to dismiss those issues in Student’s complaint alleging violations under the ADA, Section 504 or Section 1983 is granted.
ORDER
1. District’s motion to dismiss all issues relating to alleged violations under the
ADA, Section 504 and Section 1983 is granted.
2. The matter will proceed as scheduled as to the remaining issues.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 23, 2013 /s/
ADENIYI AYOADE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings