California OAH special education order · November 7, 2024

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issues for Lack of Jurisdiction

OAH Case No. 2024070468 · ALJ Thanayi Lindsey

OAH dismissed Student's Section 504, ADA, Equal Educational Opportunities Act, and Title VI claims because OAH lacks jurisdiction over discrimination claims outside the IDEA.

Granted Motions to dismiss

This case went to decision

Student v. Palo Alto Unified School District: Palo Alto Unified must make up three hours of missed speech therapy; Korean-language assessment and all other claims denied. (2025)

Summary

Palo Alto District moved to dismiss Issues 2 and 3 of Student's due process complaint, arguing OAH lacks jurisdiction over them. In a partial opposition, Student conceded the issues were based on Section 504 and Title VI / the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, but said they were closely related to Issue 1 and were raised to exhaust remedies. OAH found that the claims alleged discrimination based on disability, language, and race, which falls outside the IDEA. It dismissed Issues 2 and 3, and the case will go forward on Issue 1 only.

Why it matters

OAH can decide only IDEA-related claims about identification, evaluation, placement, or FAPE. Families who add Section 504, ADA, or civil-rights claims to try to exhaust remedies should expect those claims to be dismissed and may need to pursue them in another forum.

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.

Topics

motion to dismiss jurisdiction section 504 ada civil rights exhaustion

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.

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2024070468

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS ISSUES FOR

LACK OF JURISDICTION

NOVEMBER 7, 2024

On October 7, 2024, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing, referred to as a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Palo Alto Unified School District. The Office of Administrative Hearings is referred to as OAH. The Palo Alto Unified School District is referred to as Palo Alto District.

On November 5, 2024, Palo Alto District filed a Motion to Dismiss Issues 2 and 3 from the complaint, alleging OAH lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate these issues. Also, on November 5, 2024, Student filed a Partial Opposition to Palo Alto District’s motion and conceded to Issues 2 and 3 being based on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title VI of the Equal Education Opportunity Act. Student further argued these claims were closely related to Student’s Issue 1 and therefore were raised for exhaustive purposes.

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 Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51), or the Equal Education Opportunity Act.

Student alleges Palo Alto District denied Student a free appropriate public education in Issue 2 under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act; and in Issue 3 under the Equal Education Opportunity Act and title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The District asserts OAH lacks jurisdiction over these claims because the claims allege illegal discrimination based on language and race. Therefore, the claims fall outside of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and OAH does not have jurisdiction to resolve these claims. Accordingly, Issues 2 and 3 of Student’s complaint are dismissed.

ORDER

Palo Alto District’s Motion to Dismiss is granted. The matter will proceed as scheduled as to the remaining issue.

Thanayi Lindsey Thanayi Lindsey (Nov 8, 2024 14:23 PST)

Thanayi Lindsey Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings