California OAH special education order · January 15, 2019
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Student's Issue # 4
OAH Case No. 2019010105 · ALJ Rebecca Freie
OAH dismissed Student's Section 504, ADA, and civil rights claim because special education due process hearings cannot decide those claims; the case proceeds on the remaining issues.
This case went to decision
Student v. Tuolumne County Superintendent of Schools et al. (consolidated): Tuolumne County Superintendent of Schools and Curtis Creek must fund residential placement at Madison Oaks and reimburse $11,025 after broad FAPE denials. (2019)
Summary
Tuolumne County Superintendent of Schools and Curtis Creek School District jointly moved to dismiss Issue #4 of Student's due process complaint. That issue alleged violations of Section 504, the ADA, and other civil rights laws. Student did not respond. OAH granted the motion because its jurisdiction is limited to IDEA matters such as identification, evaluation, placement, and FAPE, and the case will go forward on the other issues.
Why it matters
OAH can only decide special education claims under the IDEA and the Education Code. Families who want relief under Section 504, the ADA, or other civil rights laws must pursue those claims in a different 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.
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. 2019010105 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS STUDENT’S ISSUE # 4
TUOLUMNE COUNTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS and
CURTIS CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On January 8, 2019, Tuolumne County Superintendent of Schools and Curtis Creek School District jointly filed a motion to dismiss Issue # 4 in Student’s due process complaint and request for mediation. Student did not file a response.
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.), Section 1983 of Title 42 United States Code, the Americans with Disability Act (Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1201, et seq.), and the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51).
DISCUSSION
Student’s Issue # 4 states, Tuolumne County and Curtis Creek “violated [Student]’s rights under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, and other related civil rights statutes.” OAH lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims. Accordingly, Student’s Issue # 4 is dismissed. The matter shall proceed as to the remaining issues only.
ORDER
Tuolumne County and Curtis Creek’s motion to dismiss Student’s Issue #4 is granted.
The matter will proceed as scheduled as to the remaining issues.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: January 15, 2019
REBECCA FREIE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings