California OAH special education order · April 10, 2014
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue Three
OAH Case No. 2014040069 · ALJ Theresa Ravandi
OAH dismissed Student's Issue Three alleging Section 504 and ADA violations because OAH lacks jurisdiction over those civil rights claims; the case proceeds on the remaining issues.
This case went to decision
Student v. California School for the Deaf, Riverside et al.: Moreno Valley Unified and California School for the Deaf, Riverside, win deaf student's triennial speech and language assessment claim. (2015)
Summary
Moreno Valley moved to dismiss Issue Three of Student's complaint, which alleged violations of Section 504 and the ADA, and School for the Deaf joined the motion. Student did not respond, and her complaint stated she expected the issue to be dismissed and had included it only to exhaust administrative remedies. OAH granted the motion because its jurisdiction is limited to IDEA matters and does not extend to Section 504 or ADA claims.
Why it matters
Families can include Section 504 and ADA claims in an OAH complaint to show they exhausted administrative remedies, but OAH will dismiss those claims. They must be pursued in another forum, such as court.
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. § 12101 et seq.
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. 2014040069 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS ISSUE THREE
MORENO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
FOR THE DEAF.
On March 27, 2014, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
a Request for Due Process Hearing (complaint), naming Moreno Valley Unified School District (Moreno Valley) and California School for the Deaf -Riverside (School for the Deaf)
as the respondents.
On April 4, 2014, Moreno Valley filed a Motion to Dismiss Issue Three alleging that this issue is outside the scope of OAH’s jurisdiction. On April 4, 2014, School for the Deaf filed a written notice that it joined Moreno Valley’s Motion to Dismiss Issue Three. OAH has not received a response from Student.
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.)
OAH does not have jurisdiction to entertain civil rights claims based on violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) codified at title 29, United States Code, section 701 et seq., or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) codified at title 42, United States Code, section 12101, et seq.
DISCUSSION
Moreno Valley and School for the Deaf request that OAH dismiss Student’s Issue Three, which alleges violations of Section 504 and the ADA, for lack of jurisdiction.
Student indicates in her complaint that she anticipates that OAH will dismiss Issue Three, which was included solely for the purpose of exhausting administrative remedies. OAH does not have jurisdiction to hear claims brought under the ADA or Section 504 and accordingly, the motion to dismiss Issue Three is granted.
ORDER
1. Student’s Issue Three is dismissed.
2. The matter will proceed as scheduled as to the remaining issues.
DATE: April 10, 2014 /s/
THERESA RAVANDI
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings