California OAH special education order · August 10, 2016
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue 4 of Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016070290, 2016041030 · ALJ Rebecca Freie
OAH dismissed Student's Section 504, ADA, and California civil rights claims because OAH has no jurisdiction over them; the case proceeds on the remaining special education issues.
This case went to decision
Student v. Capistrano Unified School District (consolidated): Capistrano Unified violated child find for a student who stutters and must fund an IEE and 176 therapy hours. (2017)
Summary
Capistrano moved to dismiss Issue 4 of Student's complaint, which raised claims under Section 504, the ADA, and California civil rights laws. Student did not file a response. Student's complaint itself admitted that OAH lacks jurisdiction over these claims and said they were included only so Capistrano could not later argue in federal court that Student had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. OAH granted the motion because its jurisdiction is limited to matters of identification, evaluation, placement, and the provision of a free appropriate public education, and the hearing will go forward on the other issues.
Why it matters
Families can list Section 504 and ADA claims in an OAH complaint to protect against an exhaustion defense in later federal court. They should still expect OAH to dismiss those claims, since OAH can only decide special education (IDEA) issues.
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
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. 2016070290 v.
CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2016041030
DISTRICT,
v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. DISMISS ISSUE 4 OF COMPLAINT
On July 11, 2016, Student filed a request for mediation and due process hearing (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Capistrano Unified School District. The complaint contained four issues. Issue 4 raised claims based on section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973(29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.), the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq.), and “California Civil Rights laws.”
On July 21, 2016, Capistrano filed a motion to dismiss Issue 4 in Student’s complaint on the grounds that OAH does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims based on alleged violations of section 504, the ADA and California civil rights laws. Student did not file a response.
APPLICABLE LAW
Parents have 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); see also Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a).) 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, the ADA, or any civil rights laws.
DISCUSSION
Student contends, in Issue 4, that Capistrano violated his rights under section 504, the ADA and California civil rights laws. Student acknowledges that OAH does not have jurisdiction over cases brought under these statutes, but states that he is raising this issue so that he may pursue it in federal court, should the OAH Decision be appealed, and not have Capistrano then raise the defense that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies as required to under these laws. Accordingly Student’s Issue 4 is dismissed.
ORDER
1. Capistrano’s motion to dismiss Student’s Issue 4 is granted.
2. The matter shall proceed as scheduled on all other issues.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: August 10, 2016
REBECCA FREIE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings