California OAH special education order · October 18, 2024
Order Denying Motion to Disqualify Administrative Law Judge
OAH Case No. 2024070979, 2024030766 · ALJ Rita Defilippis
OAH denied Monrovia's mid-hearing motion to disqualify the ALJ, holding that an AI scan showing 68.3 percent of objection rulings favored Student does not prove actual bias.
This case went to decision
Student v. Monrovia Unified School District (consolidated): Monrovia Unified denied FAPE by not offering social skills training and must fund up to $3,200 in PEERS sessions. (2024)
Summary
On the fourth day of the due process hearing, Monrovia moved to disqualify the ALJ for cause. It argued that her rulings on objections and her decision to recall Student's expert for possible rebuttal showed bias, and it relied on an artificial intelligence scan finding that 68.3 percent of objection rulings favored Student. The ALJ denied the motion. She explained that disqualification requires a factual showing of actual bias, that rulings rest on the specific questions and evidence, and that no rebuttal testimony had yet been offered or allowed.
Why it matters
Lopsided ruling statistics, even when generated by AI software, do not show an ALJ is biased, because disqualification requires proof of actual bias, interest, or personal connection. Parents facing a district's mid-hearing bias challenge can expect OAH to keep the hearing on track unless real evidence of bias is shown.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11425.40
- American Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Board (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 464
- Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017
- Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152
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 CONSOLIDATED MATTERS INVOLVING:
MONROVIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
and
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024070979
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024030766
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
OCTOBER 18, 2024
On October 18, 2024, on the fourth day of the due process hearing, Monrovia Unified School District filed a motion to disqualify the undersigned Administrative Law Judge, called ALJ, from hearing this case.
APPLICABLE LAW
An Administrative Law Judge may be disqualified for bias, prejudice, or interest in the proceeding. (Gov. Code, § 11425.40, subd. (a).) The following, without further evidence of bias, prejudice, or interest, are not by themselves grounds for disqualification:
• The Administrative Law Judge is or is not a member of a racial, ethnic,
religious, sexual, or similar group and the proceeding involves the rights of that group;
• The Administrative Law Judge has experience, technical competence, or
specialized knowledge of, or has in any capacity expressed a view on, a legal, factual, or policy issue presented in the proceeding; or
• The Administrative Law Judge has as a lawyer or public official participated
in the drafting of laws or regulations or in the effort to pass or defeat laws or regulations, the meaning, effect, or application of which is in issue in the proceeding. (Gov. Code, § 11425.40, subd. (b).)
In other words, to disqualify an Administrative Law Judge for cause, a factual showing of actual bias or prejudice is required. (See American Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Board (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 464, 472.) For example, to be a basis for disqualification, the financial interest of an administrative law judge in the outcome of the case must be direct, personal, and substantial, rather than slight. (Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017, 1031.) Personal involvement in the case by an administrative law judge or familial connections may warrant disqualification based solely on the probability of bias. (See Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1170-1173.) However, in most other cases, including claims of bias arising from the hearing officer’s personal or political views, disqualification will not occur absent a showing of actual bias. (Haas, supra, at p. 1032.)
DISCUSSION
Monrovia seeks to remove the undersigned ALJ for cause, upon the claim that she demonstrated bias and prejudice favoring Student and against Monrovia in her interpretation of the law regarding hearing objections and rebuttal evidence. Monrovia contends the undersigned ALJ’s rulings regarding objections and the decision to recall Student’s expert for the purpose of potential rebuttal evidence, favored Student.
Monrovia contends that its artificial intelligence software scan of the hearing concluded that 68.3 percent of the rulings on objections were in Student’s favor, thus demonstrating the undersigned ALJ’s bias toward Student.
The undersigned ALJ has considered Monrovia’s challenge for cause and request for a new administrative law judge and relevant legal provisions cited in its motion.
Monrovia has not demonstrated any probable or actual bias or prejudice on the part of the undersigned ALJ towards Student. The undersigned ALJ holds no bias towards Student or prejudice against Monrovia and has no financial interest in the outcome of this case or any personal connection to any hearing participant in this matter.
Monrovia’s challenge, based on the percentage of rulings against its objections’ during hearing does not demonstrate bias or prejudice. The undersigned’s rulings are grounded in the specific questions asked and the evidence presented and are based on the unique circumstances of the case. If such a standard were deemed prejudicial, it would imply that any ALJ who ruled against a party on objections could be considered bias. Additionally, Monrovia’s claim of bias related to allowing rebuttal witness is rejected as no rebuttal testimony has been presented or allowed as the witness has not yet been called, nor specific offers of proof considered. Accordingly, Monrovia’s motion to disqualify the ALJ as a challenge for cause is denied.
ORDER
Monrovia’s motion to disqualify the ALJ at hearing is denied. The hearing will proceed as scheduled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Rita Defilippis Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings