California OAH special education order · September 11, 2015
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue No. 4
OAH Case No. 2015080436 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH dismissed Student's Section 504, ADA, and California civil rights claim because OAH lacks jurisdiction over those laws; the case proceeds on three IDEA assessment and present-levels issues.
This case went to decision
Student v. Lake Elsinore Unified School District: Lake Elsinore Unified did not deny FAPE by failing to assess, because parents refused consent to its assessment plans. (2016)
Summary
Lake Elsinore Unified School District moved to dismiss Issue No. 4 of Student's due process complaint, which alleged that the District failed to comply with Section 504, the ADA, and California civil rights law. Student did not oppose. OAH granted the motion because its jurisdiction is limited to IDEA matters: identification, evaluation, placement, and the provision of a free appropriate public education. The hearing will go forward only on Issues 1 through 3, which concern assessments and present levels of performance.
Why it matters
Parents should not rely on an OAH due process hearing to resolve Section 504, ADA, or state civil rights claims. Those claims will be dismissed and must be pursued in another forum, so complaints should frame issues as IDEA denials of FAPE wherever possible.
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. 2015080436 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS ISSUE NO. 4
LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
Student filed a request for due process hearing (complaint) on August 4, 2015. On September 1, 2015, Lake Elsinore Unified School District filed a motion to dismiss Issue No.
4 from Student’s complaint. No opposition was received.
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” 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 claims based on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (Section 504)), the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. (ADA)) and California civil rights laws.
DISCUSSION
Student’s complaint alleges that she is a student eligible for special education under the IDEA as a result of her behaviors and anxiety. Student alleges four claims, that District denied her a FAPE by: (1) failing to assess Student in all areas of suspected disability for the 2013-2014 school year; (2) failing to assess Student for her triennial individualized education program review in 2014; (3) failing to properly determine and document her present levels of performance at the triennial review; and (4) failing to comply with Section 504, the ADA and California civil rights law.
Student’s Issue No. 4 arises under Section 504, the ADA and California civil rights laws, and OAH lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate claims under those statutes. Therefore, this issue cannot be heard in this due process proceeding and must be dismissed.
ORDER
1. Issue No. 4 of Student’s complaint is dismissed.
2. This matter shall proceed to hearing on Issues 1, 2 and 3 of Student’s complaint
only.
DATE: September 11, 2015
/ S/
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings