California OAH special education order · September 6, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016080786 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that District's argument that a stay put order fixed Student's program is an affirmative defense for the hearing, not a pleading defect.
Summary
District filed a notice of insufficiency claiming Student's complaint was vague and confusing, and argued that a stay put order in a related case fixed Student's program so District could not change it. Student's complaint alleged that District failed to offer more speech services based on Student's needs rather than staff availability, failed to implement mainstreaming and aide support from the 2014 IEP, failed to assess for assistive technology, and failed to give prior written notice. OAH found the complaint clearly identified the alleged failures and the related facts, giving District enough notice to respond and take part in resolution and mediation. Whether District has an affirmative defense is a question for the hearing on the merits and does not make the complaint insufficient.
Why it matters
A district cannot defeat a complaint at the sufficiency stage by arguing it has a defense, such as a stay put order. Sufficiency looks only at whether the complaint gives fair notice of the problems, the facts, and the remedy sought.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
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. 2016080786 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On August 12, 2016, Student filed a due process hearing request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Tehachapi Unified School District. On August 19, 2016, District filed a notice of insufficiency as to Student’s complaint. On August 22, 2016, Student filed a reply.
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
Student’s complaint alleges that District denied Student a free appropriate public education by failing to offer increased speech services in the March 31, 2016 IEP based upon the availability of staff, rather than Student’s needs; failing to implement the mainstreaming and aide support portions of Student’s March 17, 2014 IEP from January 2016 through May 2016; failing to assess Student for assistive technology needs upon Parent’s December 7, 2015 request; and failing to provide prior written notice of its refusal to offer services requested by Parents in a May 16, 2016 letter. As a remedy, Student seeks reimbursement to Parents for a private summer reading course.
District contends that the complaint is vague and confusing. District argues that Student’s program was fixed by a stay put order in a related due process proceeding and District could not vary it.
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. The complaint alleges clearly-identified failures to offer appropriate services, implement an operative IEP, assess or provide prior written notice. Whether District has an affirmative defense to Student’s claims, is a matter for determination on the merits, and does not render Student’s complaint insufficient.
Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Therefore, Student’s statement of the claims is sufficient.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
DATE: September 6, 2016
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings