California OAH special education order · February 22, 2018
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2018020349 · ALJ Theresa Ravandi
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified one failure-to-implement issue, listed the 16 IEP accommodations allegedly not provided, and proposed compensatory education as a remedy.
Summary
Monrovia filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint raised one issue: whether Monrovia denied Student a FAPE from August through December 2017 by failing to implement the accommodations and supplementary aids in his May 17, 2017 IEP. The ALJ found the complaint sufficient because it listed the 16 required accommodations and alleged that teachers did not implement them. The proposed resolution, compensatory education including academic instruction from a nonpublic agency chosen by Student, met the legal standard, and all scheduled dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A failure-to-implement claim is likely to survive a sufficiency challenge when the complaint names the specific IEP and lists the accommodations that were not provided. OAH reads pleading requirements liberally.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C)
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1)
- 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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2018020349 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
MONROVIA UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT .
On February 6, 2018, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Monrovia Unified School District. On February 21, 2018, Monrovia 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).
The complaint is deemed sufficient unless a party notifies the Office of Administrative Hearings and the other party in writing within 15 days of receiving the complaint that the party believes the complaint has not met the notice requirements.
(20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1).)
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 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).
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 46540-46541, 46699.)
DISCUSSION
Monrovia timely filed its Notice of Insufficiency within 15 days of receiving Student’s complaint. Student identifies one issue for hearing, namely, whether Monrovia denied him a free appropriate public education between August 2017 and December 2017 by failing to implement the supplementary aides and accommodations listed in his May 17, 2017 individualized education program. Student alleges that his teachers did not implement his required accommodations and supplemental services in conformity with his May 2017 IEP. Student’s complaint includes a listing of 16 accommodations required pursuant to his May 2017 IEP. The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put Monrovia on notice of the issue forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint identifies the issue and adequate related facts about the problem to permit Monrovia to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation and to prepare for hearing.
Therefore, Student’s complaint is sufficiently pled.
A complaint is required to include proposed resolutions to the problem, to the extent known and available to the party at the time. (20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).) Student requests that Monrovia be found to have violated his right to a FAPE and that it be responsible for providing him with compensatory education services, including academic instruction, by a non-public agency chosen by Student. The proposed resolution stated in Student’s complaint has met the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to him at the time.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All scheduled prehearing conference and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
DATE: February 22, 2018
THERESA RAVANDI
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings