"Fair Adjudication”: Due Process Hearings Under The IDEA

ABSTRACT: Most of the litigation concerning the fairness of DPHs has focused on impartiality, with most of the claims targeting only the local, not the state, education agency. Recently, the fairness challenges have extended to other aspects of DPHs, such as the competence of hearing officers, and to state education agencies, such as the systemwide timeliness of decisions. The recent decision in J.A. v. Williamson County Board of Education represents a “fair adjudication” claim against the state education agency stemming from the decision-writing phase of a DPH. This case joins an accumulating line of previous decisions that identify insufficient care in hearing officers' decision-writing. Some of these issues are correctable by timely and well-targeted training. Others, such as the cutting-and-pasting shortcuts in J.A., are more a matter of ethical norms and professional review among the hearing officers within the culture of each state system. For decision writing as well as other aspects of the IDEA DPH process, the liability of state education agencies is limited to prejudicial systemic deficiencies. Moreover, state laws specific to DPHs add to the applicable standards and reflect the notable variance among jurisdictions. In any event, whether state education agencies are liable for such issues, more proactive and effective attention by both hearing officers and state supervisors, including training, is in the common interests of the child, the parents, and districts in terms of a more timely and less costly IDEA adjudication proces