California OAH special education order · February 8, 2019
Order Denying Request to Determine Sufficiency of Student's Complaint
OAH Case No. 2019020277 · ALJ Rita Defilippis
OAH denied the District's sufficiency challenge because Student's only claim, a challenge to expulsion for conduct alleged to be a manifestation of disability, is expedited, and expedited complaints cannot be tested for sufficiency.
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint alleging the District was seeking to expel Student for January 25, 2019 behavior that was a manifestation of Student's disability, and asked that Student be reinstated. The next day the District filed a Notice of Insufficiency. OAH denied it, finding the complaint gave the District enough notice of the issue. OAH also held that federal law has no procedure for testing the sufficiency of an expedited complaint, and there is not enough time for one. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
Districts cannot use a sufficiency challenge to delay an expedited discipline hearing. Parents challenging an expulsion or manifestation determination can expect the hearing to stay on its fast-track schedule.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46,540-46541, 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. 2019020277 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
DETERMINE SUFFICIENCY OF
CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL STUDENT’S COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On February 7, 2019, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Cornejo Valley Unified School District. On February 8, 2019, Cornejo 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
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint state one issue. Student alleges that Cornejo seeks to expel him for behavior which is a manifestation of his disability which is alleged to have occurred on January 25, 2019. As a proposed resolution, Student requests Cornejo to reinstate Student. The facts are sufficient to put Cornejo on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint identifies an expedited issue challenging a change of placement, and states related facts about the problem to permit Cornejo to respond to the complaint and participate in an expedited mediation and hearing. Because Student’s sole issue raised in his complaint states an expedited issue, an expedited hearing is required pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k). 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 and there is insufficient time to complete the NOI process. Accordingly, Cornejo’s request to determine the sufficiency of Student’s complaint is Denied.
ORDER
1. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
DATE: February 8, 2019
RITA DEFILIPPIS
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings