California OAH special education order · March 17, 2015
Order Regarding Due Process Complaint's Sufficiency
OAH Case No. 2015030188 · ALJ Joy Redmon
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite San Francisco's objection that it omitted specific IEP meeting dates, because the issues and proposed resolutions made clear Student was challenging the current IEP offer.
Summary
San Francisco filed a Notice of Insufficiency arguing that Student's complaint did not identify the specific IEP or IEP team meeting dates Student objected to. The ALJ disagreed. Read as a whole, the issues and proposed resolutions showed that Student was challenging the district's current IEP offer. The six claims gave enough facts for San Francisco to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation, so the complaint was deemed sufficient and all dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint does not have to list exact IEP meeting dates if the claims and proposed resolutions make clear which offer is being challenged. OAH reads complaints liberally, but naming specific dates still avoids this kind of challenge.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C)
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 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. 2015030188 v. ORDER REGARDING DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT’S SUFFICIENCY
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On March 02, 2015, Student filed a due process hearing request naming San Francisco Unified School District as the respondent.
On March 17, 2015, San Francisco 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. 1 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).
The complaint is deemed sufficient unless a party notifies the Office of Administrative Hearings and the other party in writing within 15 days of receiving the complaint that the party believes the complaint has not met the notice requirements. 2 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 1 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).
2 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1).
3 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV).
requirements prevent vague and confusing complaints, and promote fairness by providing the 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 IDEA 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.
DISCUSSION
San Francisco asserts that the complaint is not sufficient because it fails to include the specific individualized education program (IEP) or IEP team meeting dates to which Student specifically objects. A reading of the issues and proposed resolutions, however, make clear that Student is challenging San Francisco’s current IEP offer. The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put San Francisco on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit San Francisco to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Therefore, Student’s statement of the six claims and proposed resolutions are 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.].
ORDER
1. The complaint is deemed sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(c)(2)(C) and Education Code section 56502, subdivision (d)(1).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED
DATE: March 17, 2015
/ S/
JOY REDMON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings