California OAH special education order · February 26, 2018
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
OAH Case No. 2018020337 · ALJ Clifford H. Woosley
OAH denied District's motion to dismiss Student's expedited manifestation determination appeal, finding the expulsion waiver did not waive IDEA rights and that factual disputes require a hearing.
This case went to decision
Student v. Fillmore Unified School District: Fillmore Unified's manifestation determination upheld; ALJ finds ninth grader's on-campus drug possession not caused by his disability. (2018)
Summary
Student filed an expedited complaint challenging a December 2017 manifestation determination and the expulsion that followed. District moved to dismiss, arguing that Parent signed a waiver agreement giving up any right to contest the expulsion recommendation, and supported the motion with declarations and 33 pages of exhibits. OAH denied the motion. The expulsion waiver did not specifically waive Student's right to appeal a manifestation determination under the IDEA, and District's motion depended on disputed facts that must be decided at an evidentiary hearing. The expedited hearing will go forward as scheduled.
Why it matters
A parent who signs a waiver of the district's expulsion hearing has not necessarily given up the right to challenge a manifestation determination under the IDEA. Districts also cannot use a motion to dismiss, backed by declarations and exhibits, to get disputed facts decided without a hearing.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)
People named in the order
- Mary Williams, District declarant
- Trina Tofoya, District declarant
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. 2018020337 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS
FILLMORE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On February 7, 2018, Student filed a complaint asserting that a December 2017 manifestation determination was procedurally insufficient and substantively in error, rendering Student’s subsequent expulsion subject to reversal. The matter is scheduled for expedited hearing on March 6, 2018.
On February 21, 2018, District filed a motion to dismiss, generally asserting that District and Parent entered into a waiver agreement whereby Student and Parent relinquished any right to contest the expulsion recommendation, as specified in the agreement. On February 26, 2018, Student filed Opposition to District’s Motion to Dismiss, with objections to the declarations submitted in support of District’s motion.
On February 26, 2018, Administrative Law Judge Clifford H. Woosley convened the prehearing conference and heard oral argument from both parties on District’s motion to dismiss.
APPLICABLE LAW
Parents of a child with a disability, who disagree with the any decision regarding placement or the manifestation determination, under 20 U.S.C., section 1415, subsection (k), may request an expedited hearing on appeal. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3).)
Although OAH will grant motions to dismiss allegations that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction (e.g., civil rights claims, section 504 claims, enforcement of settlement agreements, incorrect parties, etc.), special education law does not provide for a summary judgment procedure. Further, federal and state special education law reserves the weighing of evidence and findings of fact for the due process hearing and decision.
DISCUSSION
District asserts that Parent entered into a waiver agreement whereby Student and Parent relinquished any right to contest the expulsion recommendation. District therefore contends that Student and Parent are barred from filing and pursuing an expedited appeal from the December 2017 manifestation determination. In support, District submitted declarations of Mary Williams and Trina Tofoya, with 33 pages of exhibits, including:
Student’s most recent IEP; December 4, 2017 Attendance Agreement (English and Spanish);
Notification of Administrative Suspension; Waiver of Expulsion/Administrative Hearing (English and Spanish); Parent Request to Waive 10 Day Notice (English and Spanish);
District’s Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law and Recommendation for Expulsion; Motion Following Deliberations (with approval by District’s Board of Education); December 20, 2017 Notice of Expulsion (English and Spanish); December 5, 2017 Notification to Parents re Recommendation for expulsion (English and Spanish); December 4, 2017 Extension of Suspension Meeting checklist (English and Spanish); and December 4, 2017 Extension of Suspension Pending an Expulsion Hearing (English and Spanish).
In opposition, Student asserts that the waiver agreement did not include a waiver of Student’s rights under the IDEA, including the ability to challenge the manifestation determination. Student also filed objections to both declarations submitted in support of District’s motion, specifying each objection with a reference to the line, statement, and Evidence Code violation. Basically, Student states that District’s contention requires a hearing and may not be determined on motion.
District has proffered substantial evidence by way of declaration and documents.
Much of District’s documentary evidence relate to notice and parental participation in the expulsion process and, therefore, the enforceability of a knowing waiver. None of the evidence addresses Student’s waiver of any rights under IDEA. Since the expulsion waiver does not include a specific waiver of Student’s right to appeal a manifestation determination, an evidentiary hearing is necessary to enable the ALJ to make informed factual findings that may be utilized in issuing a decision.
Here, District’s supporting declarations and documentary evidence demonstrate that its motion seeks a determination on disputed factual issues. Factual disputes shall be determined at an evidentiary hearing, not a motion to dismiss. The motion is denied.
ORDER
1. District’s motion to dismiss Student’s complaint is denied.
2. The expedited hearing shall proceed as scheduled.
DATE: February 26, 2018
CLIFFORD H. WOOSLEY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings