California OAH special education order · February 15, 2018
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2018020298 · ALJ Linda Johnson
OAH declined to test the sufficiency of Student's wrongful-expulsion complaint because expedited disciplinary claims are not subject to the notice-of-insufficiency process, so the March 6, 2018 hearing stays on calendar.
Summary
Student filed an expedited complaint alleging he was wrongfully expelled from Technology Middle School, and the school filed a Notice of Insufficiency. The ALJ noted that the complaint gave no facts and no proposed resolution, and did not explain how the expulsion related to a disability. Even so, the ALJ ruled that the complaint raised only an expedited disciplinary issue under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3). The IDEA has no procedure for testing the sufficiency of expedited complaints, and there is not enough time for one, so the case will go to hearing on March 6, 2018, as scheduled.
Why it matters
A district cannot use a notice of insufficiency to delay or knock out an expedited discipline appeal, even a thinly pleaded one. Parents still benefit from including facts and a proposed resolution so the hearing is focused.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(A)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 Fed. Reg. 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. 2018020298 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
TECHNOLOGY MIDDLE SCHOOL. COMPLAINT
On February 5, 2018, Student filed an expedited Due Process Hearing Request (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Technology Middle School.
OAH determined that Student’s complaint raised an expedited issue and set the matter for an expedited hearing commencing on March 6, 2018. On February 14, 2018, Technology Middle School 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, 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.
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).
§ 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
Student’s complaint raises one issue, that he was wrongfully expelled from Technology Middle School. Although Student does not allege any facts relating to the issue, or specify that the reason the expulsion was wrong has something do to with a disability, he does allege that he is a student with a disability. However, despite the lack of facts and proposed resolutions, Student’s complaint raises only an expedited issue which is not subject to the NOI process.
ORDER
1. The one issue alleged in the complaint is expedited therefore shall proceed to
hearing on March 6, 2018, as scheduled.
DATE: February 15, 2018
LINDA JOHNSON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings