California OAH special education order · May 3, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016041050 · ALJ Joy Redmon
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that it gave San Francisco clear notice of the noisy-classroom placement claim and that a remedy OAH may not order does not make a complaint insufficient.
Summary
San Francisco filed a Notice of Insufficiency against Student's complaint. The complaint alleged that at the February 23, 2016 IEP meeting the district failed to offer an appropriate 2016-2017 placement because of noise in the proposed classroom. San Francisco also argued that Student's requested remedy, moving the deaf and hard of hearing special day class to a quieter side of the building, was outside OAH's jurisdiction. OAH found the single issue was clearly stated with enough facts, and held that whether an ALJ could or would order a specific remedy does not decide whether a complaint is sufficient, because ALJs have broad discretion to craft remedies.
Why it matters
Parents only need to propose a resolution to the extent they know it when they file. A district cannot defeat a complaint on sufficiency grounds by arguing the requested remedy is beyond OAH's power.
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)
- Forest Grove School District v. T.A. (2009) 129 S.Ct. 2484
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
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. 2016041050 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On April 20, 2016, Student filed a due process hearing request1 (complaint) naming San Francisco Unified School District as respondent. On May 2, 2016, San Francisco filed 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. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).) 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. (20 U.S.C.
§ 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV).) These 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. (See H.R.Rep. No. 108-77, 1st Sess. (2003), p. 115; Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1st Sess. (2003), pp. 34-35.)
The complaint provides enough information when it provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” (Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1 A request for a due process hearing under Education Code section 56502 is the due process complaint notice required under title 20 U.S.C. section 1415(b)(7)(A).
supra, at p. 34.) 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. (Alexandra R. ex rel. Burke v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H., Sept. 10, 2009, CIV. 06-CV-0215-JL) 2009 WL 2957991[nonpub. opn.]; Escambia County Bd. 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, 8:04CV2657T24EAJ) 2005 WL 2850076 [nonpub. opn.]; but cf. M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx.
772, 775 [nonpub. opn.].) Whether the complaint is sufficient is a matter within the sound discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. (Assistance to States for the Educ. of Children with Disabilities & Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities (Aug. 14, 2006) 71 FR 46,540-46541, 46699.)
DISCUSSION
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put the San Francisco on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint contains one issue. Essentially, Student alleges that during the February 23, 2016, IEP team meeting, San Francisco failed to offer Student an appropriate placement for the 2016-2017 school year based upon the noise level in the proposed classroom. Accordingly, the complaint identifies the issue 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 claim is sufficient.
San Francisco also challenged the sufficiency of the complaint asserting that the proposed resolution is outside of OAH’s jurisdiction. Student’s requested remedy is for the deaf and hard of hearing special day class to be assigned to a classroom on the more quiet side of the building for the 2016-2017 school year. A complaint is required to include a proposed resolution to the problem, to the extent known and available to the party at the time. (20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).) Whether or not this specific remedy could or would be ordered by an ALJ is not determinative of the complaint’s sufficiency. ALJ’s have broad discretion in crafting appropriate remedies for FAPE denials. The broad authority to grant relief extends to the administrative law judges and hearing officers who preside at administrative special education due process proceedings. (Forest Grove School District v.
T.A. (2009) 129 S.Ct. 2484, 2494, fn. 11; 174 L.Ed.2d 168].) In this matter, Student has met the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to him at the time the compliant is drafted.
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.
DATE: May 3, 2016
JOY REDMON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings