California OAH special education order · January 27, 2016
Order Granting District's Motion to Dismiss Issues 9 and 10 of Second Amended Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015050430, 2016010309 · ALJ Robert Helfand
OAH dismissed Student's Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 claims because its jurisdiction is limited to special education matters under the IDEA and California law.
This case went to decision
Student v. Newport-Mesa Unified School District (consolidated): Newport-Mesa Unified wrongly denied a student with ADHD eligibility and must reimburse $5,196.07 and provide therapy; its assessments were upheld. (2016)
Summary
Student's second amended complaint included two issues alleging that Newport-Mesa violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Newport-Mesa moved to dismiss both issues for lack of jurisdiction, and Student did not respond. OAH granted the motion and dismissed both issues. It explained that its authority covers only the identification, evaluation, placement, and provision of a free appropriate public education, so it cannot hear claims under Section 504, Section 1983, or the ADA. The consolidated case will proceed as scheduled.
Why it matters
Parents cannot bring ADA or Section 504 disability-discrimination claims in an OAH due process hearing. Those claims must go to another forum, such as court or the Office for Civil Rights, while IDEA claims stay at OAH.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)
- Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a)
- Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026
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 Consolidated Matters of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2015050430 (Primary)
v.
NEWPORT- MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
NEWPORT-MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2016010309 (Secondary)
DISTRICT
ORDER GRANTING DISTRICT’S
v. MOTION TO DISMISS ISSUES 9 AND
10 OF SECOND AMENDED
PARENT ON BEHALF OF DANIEL RIOS, COMPLAINT
STUDENT.
On August 31, 2015, Parent on behalf of Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Request for Due Process (complaint) naming Newport-Mesa Unified School District. The complaint contained five issues.
On August 20, 2015, Student filed a motion with OAH to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC). The FAC contained ten issues. Issue nine alleged that Newport-Mesa had violated Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq.). Issue ten alleged that Newport-Mesa had violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (24 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.). On August 10, 2015, OAH granted Student’s motion, and the FAC was filed on that date. On September 10, 2015, Newport-Mesa filed with OAH a motion to dismiss issues nine and ten as being outside the jurisdiction of OAH. Student did not file an opposition to Newport-Mesa’s motion. The motion to dismiss was not ruled upon.
On January 11, 2016, Student filed a motion to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) and to consolidate the Student filed case with a case filed by Newport-Mesa. OAH granted Student’s motion on January 19, 2016. The SAC was filed on January 19, 2016.
The SAC contains 12 issues. Issues nine and ten repeat the same issues as contained in the
FAC.
On January 21, 2016, Newport-Mesa filed with OAH a motion to dismiss issues nine and ten on grounds that OAH lacks jurisdiction to hear those issues.
OAH received no response to the District’s motion.
APPLICABLE LAW
The purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et.
seq.) is to “ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education”, 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.) Thus, OAH does not have jurisdiction to entertain claims based on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or Section 1983 or the ADA.
ORDER
The District’s Motion to Dismiss issues nine and ten is GRANTED. Issues nine and ten are dismissed. The matter will proceed as scheduled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: January 27, 2016
/S/
ROBERT HELFAND
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings