California OAH special education order · July 23, 2021
Order Determining Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2021070181 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it described South San Francisco's alleged failure to offer appropriate placement, instruction, and services for a child with autism and speech impairment, with facts and proposed remedies.
Summary
South San Francisco filed a timely Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The ALJ found the complaint sufficient. It alleged the district denied Student a free appropriate public education by failing to offer an appropriate placement, instruction, and related services, including extended school year, to meet his needs related to autism and speech and language impairment. It also alleged he made no progress over two years, needed a smaller campus, and did not benefit from group speech services, and it proposed remedies including compensatory education and placement at Stanbridge. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint that names the problems, gives supporting facts, and lists proposed remedies such as a specific school placement will generally survive a sufficiency challenge, because OAH reads these requirements liberally.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C)
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1)
- 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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021070181
ORDER DETERMINING COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT
JULY 23, 2021
On July 7, 2021, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming South San Francisco Unified School District. On July 20, 2021, South San Francisco timely filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint.
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). The complaint is deemed sufficient unless a party notifies OAH and the other party in writing within 15 days of receiving the complaint that the party believes the complaint has not met the notice requirements. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1).)
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.)
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s complaint alleges South San Francisco denied Student a free appropriate public education by failing to offer Student an appropriate placement or appropriate educational instruction and related services, including extended school year, to address his unique needs as a child with autism and speech and language impairment. The complaint alleges that Student failed to make educational progress during the preceding two years, that he required placement on a smaller campus instead of large campus with co-taught classes, and Student did not benefit from group speech and language services.
The complaint alleges sufficient facts about the problem to permit South San Francisco to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. The complaint includes proposed resolutions including compensatory education, extended school year, and placement and related services at Stanbridge.
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