California OAH special education order · May 20, 2015
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015040849 · ALJ Robert Helfand
OAH found Student's second amended complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged Rincon Valley denied a FAPE by refusing Parents' request to place Student in a general education class as her least restrictive environment.
Summary
Rincon Valley filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's second amended due process complaint. The complaint raised a single issue: that the district failed to place Student in her least restrictive environment, a regular general education class. It alleged that Parents asked for mainstreaming at a February 27, 2015 IEP meeting and that the district refused in a March 10, 2015 Prior Written Notice. OAH found these facts enough to put the district on notice and let it respond, take part in a resolution session and mediation, and prepare for hearing, so the complaint was sufficient and all dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A short complaint can still be sufficient if it names one clear issue and backs it with concrete facts, such as the IEP meeting date, the parent's request, and the district's written refusal. Pleading standards are read liberally in parents' favor.
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. 2015040849 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
RINCON VALLEY UNION COMPLAINT
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On May 8, 2015, Parents on behalf of Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Second Amended Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) naming Rincon Valley Union Elementary School District.
On May 18, 2015, Rincon filed with OAH a response to the complaint and a Notice of Insufficiency 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 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 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).
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. 7
DISCUSSION
Student’s complaint contains a single issue. Student contends that Rincon Valley is in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by its failure to place Student in an appropriate placement in the least restrictive environment, a regular general education class.
In support of this issue, Student alleges parents requested that Student be mainstreamed in a regular general education class at the February 27, 2015 Individualized Education Program team meeting. Rincon Valley rejected the request by a Prior Written Notice dated March 10, 2015, which acknowledged that Student had made “gradual but limited success in entering the general education classroom.”
It is quite clear that Student is alleging that she has been deprived of a free appropriate public education by Rincon Valley’s decision to refuse to parents’ request for her 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).
to be placed in a regular general education classroom, which is alleged to be Student’s least restrictive environment.
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put Rincon Valley on notice of the issue which is the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint adequately identifies the issue and contains adequate related facts about the problem to permit Rincon Valley to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Therefore, Student’s complaint is sufficient.
ORDER
1. 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: May 20, 2015
/S/
ROBERT HELFAND
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings