California OAH special education order · December 15, 2021
Order of Finding Complaint Sufficiently Pleaded
OAH Case No. 2021110751 · ALJ Alexa Hohensee
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly identified the August 2020 IEP, despite a typo in its date, and gave Sequoia enough facts to respond and prepare for resolution and mediation.
Summary
Sequoia filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint alleged that the August 14, 2020 IEP team denied Student a FAPE. It said the team ignored a medical opinion that Student needed more accommodations, relied on grades Student had remediated over the summer, and offered the same program for another year. Student sought reimbursement for private school tuition. The ALJ found that a typo in the IEP date did not create confusion, because the complaint clearly identified the meeting as three days before the August 17, 2020 school start. The single issue and its supporting facts were enough for Sequoia to respond, so all scheduled dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
OAH reads complaints liberally. A minor typo, such as a wrong date, will not make a complaint insufficient if the surrounding facts make clear which IEP or event is being challenged.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- H.R.Rep. No. 108-77 (2003)
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
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.
SEQUOIA UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021110751
ORDER OF FINDING COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY PLEADED
DECEMBER 15, 2021
On November 29, 2021, Parent on behalf of Student filed a due process hearing request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Sequoia Union High School District. Student served Sequoia by mail. On December 14, 2022, Sequoia timely 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 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, called a FAPE; includes facts about the problem; and 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, and 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 contains a typographical error in the date of his August 14, 2020 individualized education program, called an IEP, but clearly identifies it as being drafted at the IEP team meeting three days before the start of the school year on August 17, 2020. The complaint alleges that Sequoia denied Student a FAPE when the August 14, 2020 IEP team disregarded a medical opinion that Student required additional accommodations, and relied on grades Student had remediated over the summer, when it developed an IEP that offered Student the same educational program for an additional year. Student seeks reimbursement to Parent for tuition at a private school where he was subsequently enrolled.
The facts in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s complaint identifies one issue and adequate facts about the problem to permit Sequoia to respond and participate in a 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.
Alexa Hohensee Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings