California OAH special education order · August 30, 2017

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue Nine

OAH Case No. 2017080513 · ALJ Sabrina Kong

OAH dismissed Issue Nine of Student's complaint because its Section 504, ADA, and state civil rights claims are facially outside OAH's special education jurisdiction.

Granted Motions to dismiss

This case went to decision

Student v. Antioch Unified School District: Antioch Unified prevails on all nine claims about behavior plan implementation, speech-language, autism assessment, and discipline. (2018)

Summary

Antioch Unified School District moved to dismiss Issue Nine of Student's due process complaint, which alleged violations of Section 504, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and state civil rights laws. Student did not file an opposition. OAH granted the motion because its jurisdiction is limited to IDEA matters such as identification, evaluation, placement, and the provision of a FAPE. The case will proceed as scheduled on the remaining IDEA issues.

Why it matters

Parents should frame due process claims under the IDEA and state special education law, because OAH will dismiss Section 504, ADA, and civil rights claims; those claims must be pursued in another forum.

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
  • 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
  • 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

Topics

motion to dismiss jurisdiction section 504 ada civil rights claims

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:

PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2017080513 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS ISSUE NINE

ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

On August 18, 2017, Antioch Unified School District filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Motion to Dismiss Issue Nine of the due process complaint, because Issue Nine seeks redress under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the American with Disabilities Act, and state civil rights laws. Student did not file an opposition.

APPLICABLE LAW

The purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et.

seq.) is to “ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education”, and to protect the rights of those children and their parents. (20 U.S.C.

§ 1400(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C); see also Ed. Code, § 56000.) A party has 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); Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a) [party has a right to present a complaint regarding matters involving proposal or refusal to initiate or change the identification, assessment, or educational placement of a child; the provision of a FAPE to a child; the refusal of a parent or guardian to consent to an assessment of a child; or a disagreement between a parent or guardian and the public education agency as to the availability of a program appropriate for a child, including the question of financial responsibility].) 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 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.), and state civil rights laws.

Although special education law does not provide for a summary judgment procedure, OAH will grant motions to dismiss allegations that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction (e.g., civil rights claims, section 504 claims, incorrect parties, etc…..).

DISCUSSION

Here, in addition to allegations that District violated provisions under IDEA, Student’s due process complaint alleges in Issue Nine that District violated “…Section 504, ADA, and State civil rights laws”. Thus, on its face, the complaint alleges violations that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction. Accordingly, the motion is granted and Issue Nine is dismissed.

ORDER

District’s Motion to Dismiss Issue Nine is granted. The matter will proceed as scheduled as to the remaining issues, unless otherwise ordered.

DATE: August 30, 2017

SABRINA KONG

Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings