California OAH special education order · March 1, 2016
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issues Beyond the Jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings
OAH Case No. 2016020106 · ALJ Lisa Lunsford
OAH dismissed Student's Section 504, ADA, and Section 1983 claims against Irvine because OAH lacks jurisdiction over them; the IDEA and Education Code claims will proceed as scheduled.
This case went to decision
Student v. Irvine Unified School District: Irvine Unified wins every claim over home instruction, alternative school placement, and return-to-campus plan for student with chronic fatigue. (2016)
Summary
Irvine moved to dismiss the parts of Student's due process complaint that sought relief under Section 504, the ADA, and Section 1983. Student did not respond, and her complaint itself acknowledged OAH's limited jurisdiction, saying the claims were included only for notice and settlement purposes. OAH granted the motion because its jurisdiction is limited to IDEA matters. The case will go forward on the IDEA and Education Code issues.
Why it matters
Families can mention Section 504, ADA, or civil-rights claims in an OAH complaint to give notice, but OAH will dismiss them. Those claims must be pursued in another forum, while the IDEA claims continue.
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. § 1983
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. 2016020106 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS ISSUES BEYOND THE
IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. JURISDICTION OF THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
On January 26, 2016, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing (complaint)
with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Irvine Unified School District. On February 5, 2016, Irvine filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the complaint raises issues beyond the jurisdiction of OAH. OAH received no response to the motion to dismiss from Student.
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.)
OAH does not have jurisdiction to entertain claims based on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) (29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.), Section 1983 of Title 42 United States Code (Section 1983), or the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) (Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1201, et seq.).
DISCUSSION
Irvine asserts that Student’s complaint seeks relief under Section 504, the ADA and Section 1983. Irvine contends that Student’s Section 504, ADA and Section 1983 claims fall outside the scope of the IDEA and therefore are outside of OAH’s jurisdiction and should be dismissed.
In Issue One of Student’s complaint, Student contends that Irvine violated the IDEA, Section 504, the ADA, Section 1983, and all related state laws and denied Student a free appropriate public education by failing to develop a comprehensive individualized education program and offer appropriate placement and services. In the complaint’s closing paragraph, Student states that she includes claims of Irvine’s violations of Section 504, the ADA, and Section 1983 to provide Irvine with “reasonable notice of all claims that may be pursued, to pursue any administrative remedy available and facilitate comprehensive alternative dispute resolution.” Student also “acknowledges the limited jurisdiction of the OAH.”
Because OAH lacks jurisdiction to entertain claims based on Section 504, the ADA or Section 1983, to the extent Student is raising claims under these laws, they are dismissed.
ORDER
Irvine’s motion to dismiss is granted as to all issues arising under Section 504, the ADA and Section 1983. The matter will proceed as scheduled as to the remaining issues related to the IDEA or Education Code section 56000 et seq.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 1, 2016
LISA LUNSFORD
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings