California OAH special education order · February 14, 2018
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue Number Ten
OAH Case No. 2017080513 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH dismissed Issue ten of Student's second amended complaint because its Section 504, ADA, and state civil rights claims fall outside OAH's special education jurisdiction.
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
District moved to dismiss Issue ten of Student's second amended 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 about identification, evaluation, placement, and the provision of a free appropriate public education, and these claims were facially outside that scope. The case will proceed on the remaining issues.
Why it matters
Parents should frame due process claims under the IDEA and California special education law, because OAH will dismiss Section 504, ADA, and civil rights claims that appear on the face of the complaint. 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.
- 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)
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. 2017080513 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS ISSUE NUMBER TEN
ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On January 29, 2018, Antioch Unified School District filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Motion to Dismiss issue number ten of Student’s second amended due process complaint because the claim is outside the jurisdiction of OAH as Student seeks redress under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the American with Disabilities Act, and state civil rights law. 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 second amended due process complaint alleges in Issue ten 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 ten is dismissed.
ORDER
District’s Motion to Dismiss Issue ten is granted. The matter will proceed as currently scheduled on the remaining issues in Student’s second amended complaint, unless otherwise ordered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 14, 2018
TIFFANY GILMARTIN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings