Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer
DECISION
Child’s Name: T.B.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
ODR No. 01184-0910 KE
CLOSED HEARING
Parties to the Hearing: Parent[s]
Council Rock School District Chancellor Center
30 North Chancellor Street Newtown, PA 18940
Representative: Pro Se
Grace M. Deon, Esquire Eastburn and Gray P.C.
60 East Court Street
P.O. Box 1389
Doylestown, PA 18901-0137
Date of Hearing: October 29, 2010
Record Closed: November 1, 2010
Date of Decision: November 11, 2010
Hearing Officer: William F. Culleton, Jr., Esquire
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Student is [a beyond teen-aged] graduate1 of the Council Rock School District (District), who at all relevant times resided within the District (District). (NT 9-23 to 12- 15.) The Student was never identified under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (IDEA). (NT 9-5 to 6.) Parent requests due process, alleging a Child Find violation, denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE), inappropriate graduation, failure to identify as gifted, retaliation and discrimination. Parent rests his claims upon numerous statutes, including the IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, section 504, 29 U.S.C. §794 (section 504). In a pre-hearing motion, the District challenges Parent’s standing, asserts the bars of res judicata or claim preclusion and statutory and equitable limitations of claims, and challenges the hearing officer’s authority to award damages.
The hearing was conducted and concluded in one session in which the parties argued the outstanding District motions. Although I find it unnecessary to reach all of the District’s arguments, I find that the District’s motions relying upon the doctrine of res judicata and the various limitations of actions are determinative and I dismiss the complaint.
ISSUES
In his Complaint Notice (complaint) dated May29, 2010, Parent makes the following claims:
- In 2006 and 2007, the District inappropriately failed to timely evaluate and identify the Student as a child with a disability, thus failing to comply with its Child Find obligation. (NT 14-2 to 8.)
- From 2006 to the date of graduation, the District failed to offer or provide a FAPE to the Student, specifically with regard to post secondary transition services, and services for needs in the areas of academic, social, emotional and behavioral education. (NT 14-9 to 16.)
- The District inappropriately graduated the Student in June 2008, without taking into account [Student’s] alleged disability (Specific Learning Disability) and [Student’s] alleged failure to make meaningful educational progress by the time of graduation. (NT 14-17 to 15-1.)
- Since 2006, the District inappropriately failed to identify the Student as gifted. (NT 15-2 to 4.)
- District personnel engaged in retaliation against the Student due to Parents’ advocacy for the Student. (NT 14-2 to 15-15.)
- From 2006 until graduation, District personnel engaged in discrimination against the Student due to [Student’s] disability or due to belief that [Student] had a disability with regard to [Student’s] participation in [an] extracurricular activity. (NT 18-8 to 19-20, 18-8 to 23-13.)