e-Bulletin: California Special Education Case Law Update

Federal Court Rulings

9th Circuit

V.S. v. LOS GATOS-SARATOGA JOINT UNION HIGH SCH. DIST., No. 04-17480, CV-04-03675-HRL (107 LRP 25429) (9th Cir. 5/09/07).

Attorneys’ fees.  Emphasizing that, “an eligibility determination is the most important aspect of the IDEA” and is “the lynchpin from which all other rights under the [IDEA] flow,” the 9th Circuit held that an Administrative Law Judge’s order finding the District failed to conduct a timely assessment and should have found a student eligible for special education was a material change in the legal relationship of the parties. That material change entitled the Parents to attorneys’ fees. Once the ALJ found the Student eligible for special education services, the District was then obligated to conduct a reassessment at some future time, which “itself constituted an obligation the school would not have had if there had been no finding that [the Student] was a student with a disability.”

U.S. District Court

COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT v. ADDISON, No. CV 06-4717 AHM (PJWx) (107 LRP 22653) (C.D. Cal. 4/20/07)

Child find/Jurisdiction. An ALJ has jurisdiction to consider whether a District failed to meet its child-find obligation under the IDEA. In this case, the District asserted its child-find failure was attributable to "neglect" or "educational malpractice," rather than a refusal to act, and therefore could not be remedied in Due Process. It also asserted it did not have "clear notice" it would be liable.  The District’s position, however, conflicted with the clear language of the IDEA and federal regulations, had no case law support, and "would lead to the illogical and unjust conclusion that Student and her mother have a recognized right under the IDEA but no means to enforce (and, ultimately, no remedy for) violations of that right.”

M.J. v. CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. 1:05-CV-00927 OWW LJO (107 LRP 22070) (E.D. Cal. 4/03/07)

Jurisdiction/Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.  A District Court does not have jurisdiction to resolve a claim that a District breached a settlement agreement, entered into prior to the effective date of the 2005 IDEA amendments, and outside the framework of any alternative dispute resolution procedure previously or currently described in IDEA Section 1415.  The Student also had to exhaust administrative remedies, as he cited no authority for the proposition that any delay that would result from remand to the administrative system would mean the administrative process would be inadequate. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over either Student’s Unruh act claim or his state-law breach of settlement agreement claim.

PEDRAZA v. ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT and THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ET AL., No. C 05-04977 VRW (107 LRP 19834) (N.D. Cal. 3/27/07)

No Money Damages for IDEA Violations.  Not finding any 9th Circuit precedent, the court adopted the 10th, 4th, and 1st Circuits' rule and determined that the IDEA's comprehensive enforcement scheme prohibits money damages under Section 1983 (federal statute allowing persons to enforce rights protected by federal laws). “Plaintiffs have not explained how monetary damages unrelated to [the Student’s] education would serve to provide him with a ‘free appropriate public education.’ Furthermore, compensatory and punitive damages would frustrate the limited purposes of the act by essentially converting it into a tort claim against educational agencies.”

Jurisdiction to Enforce Settlement Agreements.  Courts have jurisdiction to enforce mediation and resolution agreements pursuant to the IDEA 2004 amendments, which were executed on or after July 1, 2005. However, the amendments do not apply retroactively.  Therefore, because the parties mediated the agreement at issue two years prior to July 1, 2005, the District Court did not have jurisdiction to enforce the agreement because they failed to exhaust administrative remedies. However, it excused the exhaustion requirement here because CDE refused to enforce compliance of the agreement even after finding the District was in breach. And OAH refused to accept jurisdiction despite allegations that the District denied FAPE to the Student. The court concluded, “Requiring plaintiffs to seek additional administrative hearings would not serve the policies behind the IDEA's exhaustion requirement.”

Due Process Rulings - Office of Administrative Hearings

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. N2007010772 (107 LRP 21601 (4/17/07)

IEP/Assessments. The District did not violate the Student's procedural rights to have an IEP scheduled in a timely manner within 30 days of his transfer to the District, or within 30 days of request. Upon receipt of notice from Student's attorney of Student's possible residence in the District, the District invited Student to appear and enroll. District also undertook a series of attempts to obtain Student's consent to an assessment plan and collect other additional information necessary to facilitate District's provision of a FAPE. District was also entitled to assess Student and to develop and implement an appropriate IEP. The Student delayed the process by failing to respond to District's requests and instead filed a due process complaint.

CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. N2006100469 (107 LRP 21595) (4/16/07)

FAPE.  The combination of resource services, special day class, and general education classes in choir and strings provided a reasoned balance of environments for a Student with autism to benefit from the curriculum in the least restrictive environment. Nor did the Student require occupational therapy for his handwriting. Though his handwriting was very slow, it was not caused by a need for occupational therapy but rather the result of his autism. He was exceedingly careful tracing of letters over and over again to produce perfectly formed letters when he printed.

POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. N2007030218 (107 LRP 21609) (4/12/07)

Assessments.  The District could assess a 16-year-old Student who had never been eligible for special education, after the parent did not respond to the proposed assessment plan.  The District's assessment plan contained tests and other assessment tools designed to evaluate Student's areas of suspected disability.   Student's grades had dropped significantly and her number of absences from school (both excused and unexcused) increased greatly. These two factors - the sudden decline in Student's grades and the marked increase in her absence from school - provided adequate reason for the District to assess Student.

ALHAMBRA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. N2006050809 (107 LRP 21579) (4/10/07)

Placement. The District's initial offer of placement at District's special day class devoted to severe speech and language delays with inclusion at Head Start was an offer of FAPE in the least restrictive environment for a preschool Student with autism.  Where Districts do not operate regular preschool programs their obligations to provide placement with typical children can be satisfied by offering participation in Head Start. The Student did not require a mixed inclusion class at an NPS accompanied by 1:1 aide trained in applied behavioral analysis (ABA).  The District’s teacher received Lovaas instruction in ABA techniques, and is experienced dealing with teaching pupils with severe language delays, including autistic pupils. The classroom aides received training in behavior interventions.

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. N2007030059 (107 LRP 21607) (4/10/07)

Placement.  In order to provide a FAPE to a 15-year-old with ED, the District was allowed to change a Student’s placement from a special day class for ED students at a District middle school, to an SDC at Riley School, a District-operated center with expertise in teaching and supporting students with emotional disabilities that offers on-site mental health services. Student's lack of academic improvement and social/emotional goal improvement, despite the substantial behavioral supports afforded at Horace Mann, demonstrated that in his current placement he was not getting "some educational benefit," as contemplated by the Supreme Court in Rowley. In particular, the supplementary aids and services District was providing were insufficient, given the seriousness of Student's behaviors and the need for increased supervision.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. N2007020739 (107 LRP 21605) (4/09/07)

Assessments.  The District could assess the Student despite the parent’s lack of consent.  The District has a valid concern the Student should be assessed, based on parent's request for special education and related services, as well as the Student’s reported diagnosis, attendance, and grades.  The District also has the right and obligation to determine which of its competent personnel would conduct the assessments.

LOS ALTOS SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. N2006060394 (107 LRP 21583) (4/05/07)

Eligibility.  The District properly assessed a 3-year-old preschooler and appropriately determined he was not eligible for special education services as a child with autistic-like behaviors or a speech and language impairment.  The District did not use a single measure as the sole criterion for determining eligibility of a 3-year-old preschooler. It used technically sound assessment instruments for appropriate purposes and its assessors were qualified to assess Student in pragmatic language. Nor was the District required to assess the Student in the Korean language.

PALMDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. N2006110471 (107 LRP 21597) (4/02/07)

FAPE.  The District placed a Student with autism in the least restrictive environment, and in an appropriate environment. It properly assessed her with respect to occupational therapy, properly engaged in the assessment process with respect to assistive technology, and properly commenced a behavioral observation. There was no evidence that Student's classroom behavior demonstrated the need for an FAA and a BIP.  As long as the District's program provides a FAPE, it does not matter that the Student or his parents prefer another program. The Student was entitled to compensatory education for occupational therapy and speech and language therapy, because District denied a FAPE in September 2006.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. N2006120625 (107 LRP 21599) (3/28/07)

Placement.  The Student’s preferred Non-Public School placement was not appropriate to meet his unique needs.  The 11-year-old with a Specific Learning Disability and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder would not have the opportunity to model from her typically developing peers in the NPS. There was no evidence to suggest that his inclusion with non-disabled peers would distract them or teachers. Moreover, the Student would benefit, both academically and socially, from the District's proposed public program. 

MANHATTAN BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. N2006010204 (107 LRP 21572) (3/27/07)

FAPE.  A 15-year-old with a Specific Learning Disability did not need a Non-Public School placement to receive an appropriate education.  No witnesses testified that Student's needs could not have been met in a public school during this time period. Indeed, even Student's mother and grandmother testified only that Student needed more intensive after-school support; none of the witnesses indicated that that Student required an NPS placement to receive a FAPE during the time period at issue. Moreover, testimony from school psychologist and special education teacher established that the program offered in the July and December 2004 IEPs was appropriate for Student and could have been implemented. Hence, there was no evidence to support Student's position that he required placement in an NPS in order to receive a FAPE during this period.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. N2006070443 (107 LRP 21589) (3/26/07)

IEPs.  The District did not violate a 21-year-old Student's procedural rights to have an IEP scheduled in a timely manner within 30 days of his transfer to the District or within 30 days of Student's request. The evidence demonstrated that upon receipt of notice from Student's attorney of Student's possible residence in the District, the District invited Student to appear and enroll. District also undertook a series of attempts to obtain Student's consent to an assessment plan and collect other additional information necessary to facilitate District's provision of a FAPE. The District essentially had no obligation to Student until he was enrolled in the District. Nevertheless, District made every effort to comply with the requirements under the IDEA to schedule an IEP. District was entitled to assess Student and to develop and implement an appropriate IEP. The Student delayed the process by failing to respond to District's requests and instead filed a due process complaint.

LANCASTER SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. N2007020068 (107 LRP 21603) (3/26/07)

Eligibility.  An 11-year-old Student was previously found eligible for special education under the category of SLD, based upon both visual and auditory processing disorders while enrolled in the Los Angeles Unified School District.  The District contended that a subsequent reassessment showed that Student was no longer eligible for special education as a child with a Specific Learning Disability or under any other disability category under the IDEA. Parent disagreed with the eligibility determination and refused to consent to the IEP in which the District recommended that Student be exited from the special education program. The assessment further concluded that Student no longer met the eligibility criteria for special education services as a Student with SLD, and that Student did not meet the eligibility criteria as a Student with ED or OHI. The assessment recommended the IEP team consider Student be placed in general education with monitoring by Student Study Team to possibly implement behavior supports.

CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. N2006100142 (107 LRP 21593) (3/21/07)

Assessments/IEP Members.  Due to the District's failure to complete assessments, it could not determine all of Student's unique needs and propose appropriate goals and objectives. As a result, the District was unable to offer a placement that would provide some educational benefit. The failure to complete the assessments deprived Student of educational benefits and/or opportunities, and impeded her right to a FAPE.  The District’s failure to attempt to secure the participation of Student's private school teacher and a general education teacher in the IEP process significantly impeded the opportunity of Student's mother to participate in the IEP process, denied educational benefits or opportunity to Student, and impeded Student's right to a FAPE. This resulted in a substantive denial of FAPE to Student.

HEMET UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT and RIVERSIDE COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH, No. N2006030928, N2006120513 (107 LRP 21577) (3/20/07)

Assessments/Placement.  The District conducted proper assessments before reducing the services of Student and did not initiate a change in placement to a more restrictive setting without IEP team input.  Though the District offered an appropriate placement, it did not offer instruction and services to meet Student's unique needs.  The District was required to fund 60 minutes of occupational therapy per week in a clinic setting, for a period of six months.

IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. N2006020259 (107 LRP 21575) (3/19/07)

Assessments.  The District was entitled to reassess a 20-year-old Student with autism, even though Parent thought the assessment could harm the Student because it might disrupt his schedule and cause him stress. The District showed that conditions warranted an assessment of Student and that it needs current information regarding Student in order to provide an appropriate educational plan. The District accommodated the Parent’s concerns by arranging to have the assessors work in the evening hours at Student's home.

Office for Civil Rights

ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. 09-06-1089 (106 LRP 36048) (9/01/06)

The complaint alleged that the District would not implement a provision in the Student’s Section 504 plan that called for having trained diabetes personnel available during off-campus school activities. OCR subsequently learned that the District and the complainant held a Section 504 meeting, and revised the Student's Section 504 plan, which addressed and resolved and complaint.

SAN JOSE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. 09-06-1091 (46 IDELR 286) (7/31/06) 

The District did not discriminate against a 12th-grader with urinary incontinence by failing to evaluate him for special education, or by excluding him from the District's regular education program. The District had no knowledge of the student's medical condition when it decided to place him in a non-traditional high school. Because the student did not have an accommodation plan in place at the time of the transfer, the transfer was not a "significant change in placement" requiring an evaluation.

View past Special Education Law Update Bulletins
___________________________________________________________________

For more details on these case rulings or their implications for your agency, contact an attorney with the School Law practice group.

Disclaimer: BB&K eBulletins are not intended as legal advice. Additional facts or future developments may affect subjects contained herein. Seek the advice of an attorney before acting or relying upon any information in this communiqué. © 2007 Best Best & Krieger LLP