California OAH special education order · January 21, 2020
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2020010112 · ALJ Linda Johnson
OAH found Student's child find complaint sufficient, holding that it gave Sacramento City enough facts to infer the time period and understand why Student should have been referred for assessment.
Summary
Sacramento City filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's complaint, which alleged the district failed its child find duty to refer Student for a special education assessment. OAH found the complaint sufficient. Student did not state an exact time period, but she identified when she attended the district and alleged no exception to the two-year statute of limitations, so the district could infer a period of January 3, 2018, through the end of the 2017-2018 school year. Her facts about significant academic struggles and failing grades, and her proposed resolutions (an independent psychoeducational assessment and 240 hours of compensatory education), were clear enough.
Why it matters
OAH reads complaints liberally. A complaint that does not name exact dates can still be sufficient if the timeframe can be inferred from attendance dates and the two-year statute of limitations. Stating dates explicitly still avoids sufficiency challenges.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(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.
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020010112
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT
On January 3, 2020, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Sacramento City Unified School District. On January 17, 2020, Sacramento City 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 to permit Sacramento City to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Student alleges one issue, that Sacramento City failed its child find obligation to refer Student for a special education assessment because her academic struggles indicated she was in need of special education services. Although Student does not specifically identify the time period in question, she identifies the time period she attended Sacramento City and does not allege any facts to suggest an exception to the two-year statute of limitations.
Student alleges sufficient facts for Sacramento City to infer the time period in question is January 3, 2018, until the end of the 2017-2018 school year. Additionally, Student alleges facts about why Sacramento City should have referred her for a special education assessment, specifically that she struggled significantly to make progress in the general education curriculum and had failing grades.
Therefore, Student’s statement of the claim is sufficient.
Student’s proposed resolutions request an independent psychoeducational assessment and 240 hours of compensatory education. 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 are well-defined. Student has met 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: January 21, 2020 Linda Johnson Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings