California OAH special education order · April 17, 2017
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017040093 · ALJ Tara Doss
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Although it could have been better organized, it described the problems, the supporting facts, and proposed resolutions well enough for both districts to respond.
Summary
Eastside Union School District filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's complaint against it and Snowline Joint Unified School District. The complaint had both expedited and non-expedited issues. It alleged failures to assess in all areas of suspected disability, train staff, offer appropriate IEPs, implement the prior IEP, and timely hold an annual IEP. OAH found the complaint sufficient because its case history and proposed resolutions gave the districts enough notice to prepare and take part in a resolution session and mediation, and it confirmed all scheduled dates.
Why it matters
Complaints are read liberally, so a complaint that is loosely organized can still survive a sufficiency challenge if it clearly lays out the problems, facts, and requested remedies. Expedited issues cannot be tested for sufficiency at all.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- 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. 2017040093 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
SNOWLINE JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT AND EASTSIDE UNION
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On April 03, 2017, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing1 (complaint)
with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Snowline Joint Unified School District and Eastside Union School District. The complaint contains both expedited and non- expedited issues. On April 13, 2017, Eastside Union School District 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).
Title 20 United States Code section 1415(k)(3) permits a party to request an expedited hearing to appeal a decision regarding a disciplinary change of placement, such as placement in an alternative education setting or a manifestation determination regarding student conduct. This section requires an expedited hearing to occur within 20 school days of the date the hearing is requested. There is no provision similar to that in title 20 United States Code section 1415(c)(2)(A) for testing the sufficiency of a request for an expedited hearing pursuant to section 1415(k). Indeed, there is insufficient time to complete the NOI process in expedited hearings.
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, 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).
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, 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 other parties on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint alleges that Eastline Union School District denied Student a free appropriate public education for several reasons, including but not limited to, failure to assess in all areas of suspected disability;
failure to properly train staff; and failure of the March 1, 2015 and March 15, 2016 individualized education programs to meet his needs. Student’s complaint alleges that Snowline Joint Unified School District denied Student a FAPE for several reasons, including but not limited to, failure to implement Student’s IEP from Eastline Union School District;
failure to timely convene Student’s annual IEP; failure to assess in all areas of suspected disability; and failure to properly train staff.2 The complaint sets out facts related to the alleged issues under its “Case History” section and identifies proposed resolutions to remedy the districts’ alleged failures.
Therefore, while the complaint could have been organized in a more clear manner, it adequately sets forth a description of the nature of the problems of the child; facts relating to 2 This order does not analyze the expedited issues for hearing against Snowline Joint Unified School District.
the problems; and proposed resolutions of the problems; sufficient to permit the other parties to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
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: April 17, 2017
TARA DOSS
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings