J.G. ex rel. Jimenez v. Baldwin Park Unified School District
78 F. Supp. 3d 1268
C.D. Cal.2015Background
- J.G., a profoundly deaf student who uses American Sign Language (ASL) as his primary language, was educated in Baldwin Park and Covina Valley USDs in a Total Communication Program (TCP); by 2012 he showed very limited progress in English and ASL despite long-term services.
- J.G. and his mother repeatedly requested a referral to the California School for the Deaf, Riverside (CSDR); CSDR uses ASL immersion and requires a local agency referral and assessment before placement.
- At the May 12, 2011 IEP a BPUSD representative did not attend; later addendum meetings (July 15 and August 4, 2011) occurred but the IEP was not amended and BPUSD maintained the TCP as the offered FAPE.
- J.G. filed due process complaints with OAH challenging failure to refer to CSDR and the adequacy of the May 2011 and May 2012 IEPs; the OAH ALJ ruled for the districts.
- On appeal the district court found procedural IDEA violations (missing required participants; refusal to discuss CSDR during the May 11, 2012 IEP because of pending due process) and reversed OAH, ordering BPUSD to refer J.G. to CSDR and convene an IEP to review the referral.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BPUSD complied with IDEA procedural requirements at May 12, 2011 IEP | BPUSD failed to include a local agency representative knowledgeable about resources, denying meaningful parental participation and discussion of CSDR referral | Districts argued IEPs were proper and OAH correctly found no denial of FAPE | Court: procedural violation — BPUSD failed to have required representative and forced parent into a Hobson’s choice; ALJ given reduced deference |
| Whether refusal to discuss CSDR at May 11, 2012 IEP (because of pending due process) was permissible | Parent argued stay-put does not excuse district’s duty to maintain a statutorily compliant IEP and to share information needed for parental participation; refusal impeded meaningful participation | Districts/ALJ said declining to discuss referral while due process pending was reasonable and parents could pursue relief through OAH | Court: refusal violated IDEA — stay-put cannot be used to avoid IEP obligations; parent was deprived of meaningful participation |
| Whether district’s offered program (TCP at CVUSD) provided a FAPE | J.G. argued TCP failed to produce meaningful language or academic progress over many years; ASL immersion at CSDR may be necessary for educational benefit | Districts argued J.G. made progress in TCP and the offer provided appropriate services and related supports | Court: procedural violations alone warranted reversal and referral; court also found TCP likely inadequate given J.G.’s limited progress and recommended full-team consideration of CSDR referral |
| Whether ALJ’s decision merited deference | J.G. argued ALJ ignored/mischaracterized key testimony (mother, student) and relied on incomplete record | Districts relied on ALJ’s findings as thorough and entitled to deference | Court: gave substantially less deference — ALJ overlooked and mischaracterized parental and student testimony and key evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (framework for FAPE: procedures and IEP reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit)
- Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M.P., 689 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2012) (stay-put cannot excuse district’s statutory obligation to maintain compliant IEP; procedural violations can deny FAPE)
- Ojai Unified Sch. Dist. v. Jackson, 4 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir. 1993) (IDEA judicial review gives courts independent review and less deference to administrative findings)
- Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. v. Wartenberg, 59 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 1995) (thorough administrative findings receive greater deference)
- Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2001) (parental observations are important; procedural violations that impede parental participation can deny FAPE)
- Gregory K. v. Longview Sch. Dist., 811 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir. 1987) (court may accept or reject administrative findings after independent review)
- Miller v. San Mateo-Foster City Unified Sch. Dist., 318 F. Supp. 2d 851 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (IDEA summary-judgment-like proceedings permit independent review of full record and additional evidence)