California OAH special education order · March 9, 2022
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue 5 for Lack of Jurisdiction
OAH Case No. 2022020241 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian
OAH dismissed Student's Issue 5 because it alleged civil rights violations under Section 504, the ADA, and state civil rights laws, which fall outside OAH's special education jurisdiction.
This case went to decision
Student v. Enterprise Elementary School District: Enterprise Elementary must provide compensatory services, AAC device, and AT IEE for IEP and assessment delays; nurse claim denied. (2022)
Summary
Enterprise Elementary moved to dismiss Issue 5 of Student's due process complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and Student did not respond. Issue 5 alleged civil rights violations under Section 504, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and state civil rights laws. OAH explained that its jurisdiction is limited to identification, evaluation, placement, and provision of a free appropriate public education under the IDEA and Education Code. It dismissed Issue 5, and the case proceeds on the remaining issues with all dates confirmed.
Why it matters
Section 504, ADA, Section 1983, and Unruh Act claims cannot be decided at OAH, so families should frame due process issues around IDEA and FAPE and pursue civil rights claims in another forum. Not responding to a motion to dismiss means the district's arguments go unanswered.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)
- Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a)
- Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026
- 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
- 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
- Civ. Code, § 51
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.
ENTERPRISE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022020241
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS ISSUE 5 FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION
MARCH 9, 2022
Parent on behalf of Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing, referred to as a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, on February 7, 2022, naming Enterprise Elementary School District. The Office or Administrative Hearings is referred to as OAH. Enterprise Elementary filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 28, 2022, alleging OAH lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate Issue 5 alleged in the complaint. OAH received no response from Student.
The purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et.
seq.) is to “ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education,” and to protect the rights of those children and their parents. (20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C); see also Ed. Code, § 56000.) A party has the right to present a complaint “with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.” (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6); Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a) [party has a right to present a complaint regarding matters involving proposal or refusal to initiate or change the identification, assessment, or educational placement of a child; the provision of a free appropriate public education to a child; the refusal of a parent or guardian to consent to an assessment of a child; or a disagreement between a parent or guardian and the public education agency as to the availability of a program appropriate for a child, including the question of financial responsibility].) The jurisdiction of OAH is limited to these matters. (Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified School. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026, 1028-1029.)
OAH does not have jurisdiction to decide claims based on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.), Section 1983 of Title 42 United States Code, the Americans with Disability Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1201, et seq.), or the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51).
Student alleges in Issue 5 violations of civil rights under Section 504, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and state civil rights laws. District correctly asserts that OAH does not have jurisdiction to resolve these claims.
Issue 5 is dismissed based upon lack of OAH jurisdiction to consider the claims in Issue 5. The matter shall proceed as to the remaining issues. All dates are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Adrienne L. Krikorian Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings