California OAH special education order · March 11, 2014
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2014030082 · ALJ Joy Redmon
OAH found Student's Issue 5 sufficient, ruling that the claim San Jose failed to give Parent information in Parent's primary language did not need to detail exactly what information was withheld.
Summary
San Jose filed a notice of insufficiency challenging part of Issue 5 of Student's due process complaint, which alleged procedural violations including failure to provide information in Parent's primary language. San Jose argued Student did not describe in detail what information Parent was not receiving. OAH held that this level of detail is not required. Issue 5 gave San Jose enough facts to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation, so it was found sufficient and all dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
Parents do not have to list every item of information a district failed to translate. A primary-language claim that gives the district fair notice of the problem is enough to go forward.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
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. 2014030082 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
SAN JOSE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. COMPLAINT
On February 28, 2014 Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint)
naming the San Jose Unified School District (San Jose).
On March 10, 2014, San Jose filed a Notice of Insufficiency (NOI) as to Student’s complaint.
APPLICABLE LAW
The named parties to a due process hearing request have the right to challenge the sufficiency of the complaint. 2 The party filing the complaint is not entitled to a hearing unless the complaint meets the requirements of title 20 United States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A).
A complaint is sufficient if it contains: (1) a description of the nature of the problem of the child relating to the proposed initiation or change concerning the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the child; (2) facts relating to the problem; and (3) a proposed resolution of the problem to the extent known and available to the party at the time. 3 These requirements prevent vague and confusing complaints, and promote fairness by providing the 1 A request for a due process hearing under Education Code section 56502 is the due process complaint notice required under title 20 United States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A).
2 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).
3 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV).
named parties with sufficient information to know how to prepare for the hearing and how to participate in resolution sessions and mediation. 4 The complaint provides enough information when it provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” 5 The pleading requirements should be liberally construed in light of the broad remedial purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the relative informality of the due process hearings it authorizes. 6 Whether the complaint is sufficient is a matter within the sound discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. 7
DISCUSSION
San Jose only challenges the sufficiency of a portion of Student’s Issue 5.
Accordingly, only the sufficiency of Issue 5 is addressed in this Order.
The facts alleged in Issue 5 of Student’s complaint are sufficient to put San Jose on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Issue 5 of Student’s complaint alleges procedural violations, including that San Jose failed to provide information in Student’s parent’s primary language. San Jose asserts that this is insufficient because Student, “fails to describe in any detail what information his Parent has not been receiving.…” That degree of detail is not required for a compliant to be deemed sufficient.
Issue 5 provides adequate facts about the problem to permit San Jose to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, Issue 5 of Student’s complaint is sufficient.
4 See, H.R.Rep. No. 108-77, 1st Sess. (2003), p. 115; Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1st Sess. (2003), pp. 34-35.
5 Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, supra, at p. 34.
6 Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H., Sept. 10, 2009, No. 06-cv-0215- JL) 2009 WL 2957991 at p.3 [nonpub. opn.]; Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F. Supp.2d 1248, 1259-1260; Sammons v. Polk County School Bd.
(M.D. Fla., Oct. 28, 2005, No. 8:04CV2657T24EAJ) 2005 WL 2850076 at p. 3[nonpub.
opn.] ; but cf. M.S.-G. v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx.
772, at p. 3[nonpub. opn.].
7 Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities, 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006).
ORDER
1. Issue 5 of the complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
DATE: March 11, 2014 /s/
JOY REDMON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings