California OAH special education order · November 5, 2019
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2019100814 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH found Gilroy's single-issue complaint sufficient because it identified the January 29, 2019 IEP, Parents' refusal to consent, and the requested remedy, giving Student enough information to respond.
Summary
Gilroy filed a due process complaint asking OAH to rule that its January 29, 2019 IEP offer, which included placement at a nonpublic school, provides a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Gilroy alleged Parents refused to consent, so the offer could not be implemented. Student filed a notice of insufficiency. OAH found the complaint sufficient under the liberal pleading standard because it named the IEP at issue, explained the problem, and stated a proposed resolution, and it confirmed all scheduled dates.
Why it matters
A district can bring parents to hearing to have its IEP offer approved when parents withhold consent, and a short single-issue complaint is enough to go forward. Parents who receive such a complaint should prepare to defend the case on the merits rather than rely on a sufficiency challenge.
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 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:
GILROY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019100814
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT
On October 18, 2019, Gilroy Unified School District filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Student. On November 1, 2019, Student 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 issues alleged in Gilroy’s complaint are sufficient. Gilroy’s complaint is a single issue matter and the complaint provides Student with adequate facts about the problem to permit Student to respond and participate in a mediation. Gilroy’s pleading identifies the January 29, 2019 individualized education program that is at issue. In this IEP, Student was found eligible for special education services, and Gilroy made an offer of free appropriate public education that included placement at a non-public school.
Gilroy’s contention is Parents have refused to consent to the January 29, 2019 IEP. As a result of Parent’s refusal to consent, Gilroy has been unable to implement its offer.
Gilroy’s remedy request is a determination from OAH that its IEP offer constitutes FAPE and Parents must consent to the offer or Student will be exited from special education.
Gilroy’s complaint satisfies the liberal pleading standard of providing parties with an awareness and understanding of the issues in dispute.
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 5, 2019 Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings