California OAH special education order · January 20, 2015
Order Finding Student's Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2015010348 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave District enough notice of the records-access, bullying, and IEP-implementation claims and proposed remedies to respond and prepare for resolution and mediation.
Summary
District filed a notice of insufficiency against Student's complaint and its requested remedies. The complaint alleged two things. First, Parents could not take part meaningfully in an upcoming IEP meeting because District did not provide requested records. Second, District failed to implement Student's IEP: an auto mechanics teacher bullied Student and kept sending Student out of class, and no note-taker, Bookshare, speech and language services, or behavior services were provided. OAH found both issues and the remedies of compensatory services and staff training on bullying sufficient, noting that the missing IEP date did not matter because OAH's jurisdiction is limited to two years anyway.
Why it matters
Complaints are read liberally, so a complaint that names the problem, gives supporting facts like a specific teacher and the missing services, and requests compensatory education can survive a sufficiency challenge even without exact IEP dates. OAH also asked District to file insufficiency notices and motions to dismiss separately.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C)
- Ed. Code, § 56502
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (l)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
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. 2015010348 v. ORDER FINDING STUDENT’S
COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT
ROWLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On January 12, 2015 Student filed a due process hearing request 1 (complaint) naming Rowland Unified School District. On January 15, 2015, District filed a notice of insufficiency as to Student’s complaint and remedies sought. 2
APPLICABLE LAW
The named parties to a due process hearing request have the right to challenge the sufficiency of the complaint. 3 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. 4 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 District concurrently filed a motion to dismiss, which shall be addressed in a separate motion. In the future, it is requested of District to file these motions separately.
3 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).
4 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. 5 The complaint provides enough information when it provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” 6 The pleading requirements should be liberally construed in light of the broad remedial purposes of the IDEA and the relative informality of the due process hearings it authorizes. 7 Whether the complaint is sufficient is a matter within the sound discretion of the administrative law judge. 8
DISCUSSION
Student’s complaint alleges claims that (1) that Parents were deprived of an opportunity to participate in an upcoming IEP because the District failed to provide Parents with educational records requested, and (2) District failed to implement Student’s individualized education program and denied Student a FAPE because: (a) Student’s auto mechanics teacher bullied Student and repeatedly sent Student out of the room so that Student missed educational time, (b) no note-taker was provided, (c) no Bookshare application was provided and (d) neither speech and language nor behavior intervention services were provided. As remedies, Student’s complaint seeks compensatory services and an order that District personnel receive training in the law concerning bullying.
As to Issue 1, Student’s complaint alleges sufficient facts to put District on notice of alleged procedural violation of failing to produce requested documents, which did not permit Parent to adequately participate in the IEP process.
The facts alleged in Student’s Issue 2, and its subparts, are sufficient to put District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student alleges that the actions of a 5 See, H.R.Rep. No. 108-77, 1st Sess. (2003), p. 115; Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1st Sess. (2003), pp. 34-35.
6 Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, supra, at p. 34.
7 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.].
8 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).
specific identified teacher led to Student missing a significant portion of that class, and that specific accommodations and services required by Student’s IEP were not provided. The complaint does not allege the date of the IEP at issue, but the jurisdiction of OAH is limited to two years. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (l); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C)). Student seeks a remedy of compensatory education, which sufficiently alleges a resolution of the problem to the extent known and available to Student at this time. If a denial of a FAPE is established at hearing, an award of appropriate relief will be determined by the ALJ hearing based upon the evidence offered. Student’s Issue 2 identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem, and the remedies proposed, to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Therefore, Student’s complaint, and its subparts and proposed remedies, are sufficient.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint, its subparts and proposed remedies, are 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: January 20, 2015
/S/
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings