California OAH special education order · December 22, 2020
Order Finding Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2020120215 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its three issues, supporting facts, and proposed resolutions gave San Francisco Unified enough notice to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
Summary
San Francisco Unified filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint, and Student filed a response. OAH found the complaint sufficient. Its three issues alleged that the district did not have decision-makers at the IEP meeting, did not give Parents a copy of the final IEP, did not offer enough behavior support, and did not have an audiologist screen Student's hearing. The complaint also gave proposed resolutions, including placement at Wings or Open Mind School, so all scheduled dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
Pleading rules are read liberally. A complaint that clearly names the problems, gives basic supporting facts, and states a proposed remedy will usually survive a district's 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 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
- 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.
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020120215
ORDER FINDING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT
DECEMBER 22, 2020
On December 7, 2020 Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming San Francisco Unified School District. On December 21, 2020, San Francisco Unified timely filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint. Student filed a response on December 22, 2020.
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.)
Student’s complaint identifies adequate general information about Student. The complaint alleges three issues, supported by enough facts to put San Francisco Unified on notice of the claims. The allegations include that that San Francisco Unified failed to have individuals with decision making authority in attendance at Student’s individualized education program team meeting, did not provide Parents with a copy of the final individualized education program at the end of the meeting, did not offer Student sufficient behavior support services, and did not have an audiologist screen Student for hearing deficits. Student states proposed resolutions including increased supervision of behavior services, and educational placement at San Francisco Unified’s expense at Wings or Open Mind School.
Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem, and proposed resolutions, to permit San Francisco Unified to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii). All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Adrienne L. Krikorian Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings