California OAH special education order · October 26, 2018
Order Determining Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2018100105 · ALJ Linda Johnson
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient: although the issue statement was vague, the facts made clear Student claimed a denial of FAPE because Long Beach refused a one-to-one aide.
Summary
Long Beach challenged the sufficiency of Student's complaint, arguing it contained inaccurate facts, described an undated bullying incident, and did not explain how Long Beach denied Student a free appropriate public education. OAH first found the challenge timely because it was filed within 15 days of when Long Beach said it received the mailed complaint. OAH then found the complaint sufficient. The facts showed Student was claiming a denial of FAPE based on Long Beach denying his request for a one-to-one aide at the June 8, 2018 IEP meeting, whether the facts are accurate is a question for hearing, and Student's requested remedies (a one-to-one aide and a nonpublic school placement) met the requirement to propose a resolution.
Why it matters
A parent's complaint does not need a precise issue statement if the facts as a whole make the claim clear, and a district cannot defeat a complaint at the pleading stage by disputing whether the facts are true. Also, the 15-day deadline to challenge a complaint can run from when the district actually received it, not when it was filed.
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
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
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. 2018100105 v. ORDER DETERMINING COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT .
On October 1, 2018, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Long Beach Unified School District. On October 19, 2018, Long Beach 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 46,540-46541, 46699.)
DISCUSSION
Student’s complaint was filed on October 1, 2018. Student included a proof of service that he served Long Beach via U.S. Mail on October 1, 2018. Long Beach indicates in its NOI that it received Student’s complaint on October 4, 2018. Long Beach’s NOI was dated, filed with OAH, and served on October 19, 2018, which is more than 15 days after the complaint was filed, but not more than 15 days after Long Beach alleged it received Student’s complaint. Therefore, Long Beach’s NOI is deemed timely.
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put Long Beach on notice of the issue forming the basis of the complaint. Student alleges one issue, that FAPE is not being offered. Although Student is not specific in his statement about how FAPE is not being offered, the facts alleged in the complaint explain that he believes he requires a one-to- one aide. Student alleges he requested a one-to-one aide during the June 8, 2018 individualized education program team meeting but that request was denied. Student further alleges that he is passive and needs side by side help. Student also includes an allegation of abuse at the middle school during the 2017-2018 school year and that he believes he might be subjected to similar abuse at the high school he is supposed to attend for the 2018-2019 school year.
Long Beach argues Student’s complaint is insufficient because is it riddled with inaccurate facts, alleges a bullying incident without describing when it occurred, and does not explain how Long Beach denied Student FAPE. The accuracy of the facts is a question for hearing. As for bullying, Student does not mention bullying; he states he was subjected to incidents of abuse and references a June 11, 2018 letter from a doctor regarding the abuse.
Long Beach is correct that Student’s issue statement is not specific, but it is clear from the facts presented that he is alleging a denial of FAPE due to Long Beach’s failure to provide a one-to-one aide. Student’s complaint provides adequate related facts about the problem to permit Long Beach to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, Student’s statement of the claim is sufficient.
Student’s proposed resolutions request a one-to-one aide and an appropriate nonpublic school placement. 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 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 deemed sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(c)(2)(C) and Education Code section 56502, subdivision (d)(1).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
DATE: October 26, 2018
LINDA JOHNSON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings