California OAH special education order · June 21, 2017
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017060384 · ALJ Judith Pasewark
OAH found Student's transition-planning claim sufficient, rejecting District's overbreadth challenge, because the complaint was time-specific and identified specific IEP discussions and District policies.
Summary
District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging only Issue B of Student's complaint. Issue B alleged District failed to provide appropriate transition planning and support during the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 school years, and District called it an overbroad FAPE claim. OAH disagreed and found the issue sufficient. The claim was limited to specific school years and described specific IEP discussions and District policies that allegedly kept District from offering individualized placements and services, which gave District enough notice to respond, take part in a resolution session and mediation, and prepare for hearing. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A FAPE claim covering a broad topic like transition planning can survive a sufficiency challenge if it is tied to specific school years and specific IEP discussions or district policies. Parents should anchor broad claims in concrete facts when drafting a complaint.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 FR 46540-46541, 46699
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. 2017060384 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
SAN JOSE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. COMPLAINT
On June 5, 2017, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming San Jose Unified School District. On June 16, 2017, District filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Issue B only of 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, 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
District contends that Student’s Issue B, which alleges District failed to provide appropriate transition planning and support to Student during the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 academic years, is an overbroad claim of denial of FAPE. The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put the District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint is time specific. Student’s factual contentions identify specific IEP discussions, which allege District policies which prevented District from offering individualized placements and services for Student, thereby denying him FAPE.
The issues and related facts about the problem are sufficient to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Therefore, Student’s statement of Issue B 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: June 21, 2017
JUDITH PASEWARK
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings