California OAH special education order · September 6, 2019
Order Determining Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2019080878 · ALJ Linda Johnson
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it described a FAPE denial with five sub-issues about assessment and eligibility, gave supporting facts, and proposed resolutions.
Summary
San Carlos filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint alleges that San Carlos denied Student a FAPE from August 2017 to the present, with five sub-issues. These center on failing to assess in all areas of suspected disability and failing to make a FAPE offer. Student was found ineligible despite being one year below grade level, and the ALJ ruled the complaint gave enough facts about the assessment, the independent educational evaluation, and classroom performance to put San Carlos on notice, so the requested compensatory education and prospective placement met the proposed-resolution requirement.
Why it matters
A complaint that ties its claims to specific facts, such as an eligibility denial despite below-grade-level performance, an IEE, and classroom data, will survive a district's sufficiency challenge under the liberal pleading standard. Dates stay on track when that happens.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
SAN CARLOS SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019080878
ORDER DETERMINING COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT
On August 23, 2019, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming San Carlos School District.
On September 3, 2019, San Carlos filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint.
APPLICABLE LAW
The named parties have the right to challenge the complaint’s sufficiency.
(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).
A complaint is sufficient if it: (1) describes the problem relating to the proposed change regarding the Student’s identification, evaluation, or educational placement, or providing the Student a free appropriate public education; (2) includes facts about the problem; and (3) includes a proposed resolution 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 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 are sufficient. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit San Carlos to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Student alleges one issue, that San Carlos denied her a free appropriate public education, also referred to as FAPE, from August 2017 to the present. Student alleges five sub issues, all related to the denial of FAPE. Student’s includes background facts and facts related to the issues in the complaint. Student’s issues all relate to a denial of FAPE based on San Carlos’s alleged failure to assess in all areas of suspected disability and failure to make an offer of FAPE. Student alleges that although she was one year below grade level she was not found eligible because her classroom performance indicated she did not require specialized academic instruction. Student includes facts related to the assessment, subsequent independent educational evaluation, and classroom performance. Therefore, Student’s statement of the claims is sufficient to put San Carlos on notice of the issues for hearing.
Student’s proposed resolutions request compensatory education and prospective 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).)
The proposed resolutions stated in Student’s complaint meet the statutorily required standard regarding proposed resolutions.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
DATED: September 6, 2019 Linda Johnson Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings