California OAH special education order · September 25, 2020
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2020090069 · ALJ Claire Yazigi
OAH found Student's complaint seeking in-person small-cohort instruction instead of distance learning sufficient, ruling that Woodland's argument that the remedy was outside OAH's jurisdiction does not bear on sufficiency.
Summary
Woodland challenged the sufficiency of Student's complaint, which asked that Student be offered in-person learning in a small cohort during COVID-19 school closures. Student alleged that distance learning supports did not meet his needs related to autism, specific learning disabilities, severe ADHD, and fetal alcohol exposure, and that he risked regression in math. OAH found the complaint sufficient because it described the problem, supporting facts, and a proposed resolution. Woodland's argument that the requested remedy was outside OAH's jurisdiction was left to be decided at hearing.
Why it matters
A district cannot use a sufficiency challenge to knock out a complaint because it disputes whether OAH can order the requested remedy. Parents seeking in-person services during school closures need only give clear facts and a proposed resolution to get to hearing.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46,540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx. 772
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.
WOODLAND JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020090069
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
SEPTEMBER 25, 2020
On September 2, 2020, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Woodland Joint Unified School District. On September 2, 2020, Woodland 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
Student’s complaint alleges that Woodland should offer Student in-person learning with a small cohort of other students, instead of distance learning, during school closures.
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to provide Woodland an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.
Specifically, Student alleges that the current distance learning supports are insufficient to meet his needs related to his autism, specific learning disabilities, severe ADHD, and fetal alcohol exposure. Student also alleges that he risks regression in math for this same reason.
Student has met the statutorily required standard regarding proposed resolutions. Student requests that Woodland offer him in-person learning in a small cohort setting during school closures. Student points to an August 25, 2020 cohort guidance document from the California Department of Public Health as support for this request.
Woodland asserts that the resolution Student seeks is outside the jurisdiction of OAH. The applicability of the legal authority offered by Student and the propriety of Student’s requested resolution are matters to be determined at hearing; they do not bear on the sufficiency of Student’s complaint. Student has sufficiently pled his complaint to put Woodland on notice as to the basis of his claims and to permit Woodland to respond and participate in resolution session and mediation.
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.
Claire Yazigi Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings