Ninth Circuit Upholds “Discovery Rule” in OAH Special Education Due Process Case and Dismisses Student’s Claims as Barred by Statute of Limitations

03.12.2025

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (“Court”) recently affirmed a District court decision that a student did not meet either of the exceptions to the statute of limitations governing special education due process hearing requests under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). (Hathaway v. Santa Barbara Unified School District, No. 24-1457 (9th Cir. Feb. 12, 2025)). The IDEA and California law each require that a request for a special education due process hearing must be filed within two years from the date the party initiating the request knew or had reason to know of the facts underlying the basis for the request. (Cal. Educ. Code, § 56505(l); 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C)). Limited exceptions exist if a parent is prevented from requesting a due process hearing due to specific misrepresentations by the local educational agency (“LEA”) that it had resolved the problem forming the basis of the complaint, or the LEA withheld information that was legally required to be provided to the parent. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(D)). Under the IDEA and California law, the definition of “parent” includes adult students whose educational rights have transferred to them upon reaching the age of majority.

Hathaway involved an adult student who attended schools within the Santa Barbara Unified School District (“District”) from July 2007 through October 2019, and was provided accommodations through a plan developed pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“504 Plan”). In April, 2022, Hathaway filed a request for a due process hearing against the District with the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”). She attempted to pierce the two-year statute of limitations by characterizing the District’s offer of a 504 Plan as a suggestion that it was all the District could do for her, and therefore an “omission” that constituted a misrepresentation by the District. Student was not referred for special education and related services by the District, but was provided accommodations through her Section 504 Plan and mental health support through County Mental Health. Student further contended that the District’s failure to provide her or her parents with a copy of procedural safeguards was withholding of “information” that was required to be provided. The District countered that the latest possible date for Student to have timely filed an action was two years after Student stopped attending District schools, which was in October 2019.

After an evidentiary hearing on the statute of limitations, the OAH administrative law judge (“ALJ”) determined Student’s claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations and dismissed the case. On appeal, the U.S. Central District Court of California upheld the ALJ’s decision that Student’s complaint was untimely. Student then appealed to the Ninth Circuit which affirmed the application of the “discovery rule” to IDEA cases. Such rule provides that the statute of limitations period starts to run at the time when a parent knew or should have known the underlying facts of a claim. (Avila v. Spokane Sch. Dist. 81, 852 F.3d 939, 944 (9th Cir. 2017)). Citing Avila, the Court reiterated that the limitations period starts when parents have knowledge that a student’s education is inadequate, not when parents learn they have a cognizable legal claim. As applied to the facts in Hathaway, the Court upheld the ALJ’s finding that Student’s parents knew of her educational challenges and possible need for special education services as early as middle school, and certainly by the time that Student left the District in October 2019.

Should you have any questions concerning this opinion or other issues relating to the provision of a FAPE for students with disabilities, please contact either the authors of this Alert or your counsel at AALRR for clarification and guidance.