District Wins: Manifestation Determination Upheld After Student Expulsion

A 16-year-old student with a speech and language disorder was expelled from Salinas Union High School District after an alleged sexual assault off campus. The student's parent challenged the district's manifestation determination, arguing the district failed to provide updated procedural safeguards and did not fully consider the student's disabilities. The ALJ found the district followed proper procedures and correctly determined the student's conduct was not a manifestation of his disability.

What Happened

Student was a 16-year-old tenth-grader eligible for special education under the category of speech and language disorder, related to a mild hearing loss. He had also been evaluated for other potential disabilities, including ADHD, depression, and a central auditory processing disorder, though he had not been found eligible for special education under any of those categories. In October 2006, the district suspended Student for five days after he allegedly persuaded a female student to leave campus and then sexually assaulted her off school grounds.

Because Student had a disability, federal law required the district to hold a "manifestation determination" meeting before expelling him — a meeting to decide whether his conduct was caused by or directly related to his disability. The district held that meeting on October 24, 2006, with Student's mother, the school psychologist, his speech and language therapist, his case carrier, a school counselor, a special education teacher, a general education teacher, and Student's private therapist all present. The team concluded the conduct was not a manifestation of his disability, and the district expelled Student in December 2006. Parent filed a due process complaint challenging that conclusion.

What the ALJ Found

Parent raised two main arguments, and the ALJ rejected both.

On procedural safeguards: Parent argued the district failed to provide an updated copy of the procedural safeguards — which had been revised just eleven days before the meeting — prior to the manifestation determination. The ALJ found this claim had no merit. The law requires the district to notify parents of their procedural safeguards no later than the date the district decides to take disciplinary action. The record showed that Student's case carrier brought an updated copy to the meeting on October 24, 2006 — the same day the district made its disciplinary decision. Parent herself acknowledged receiving the updated document. The ALJ found the district met its legal obligation.

On the thoroughness of the review: Parent argued the district failed to fully review Student's records and did not consider all of his potential disabilities before reaching its conclusion. The ALJ disagreed. The school psychologist had conducted a pre-expulsion psychological assessment, reviewed Student's grades and prior triennial assessment, and met with Student. At the meeting, the team reviewed Student's IEPs, assessments, and teacher observations. They explicitly discussed not only Student's diagnosed speech and language disability but also his potential disabilities — including ADHD, depression, social-emotional concerns, and a central auditory processing disorder. No team member, including those who knew Student well, had ever observed any indication that he had a pattern of inappropriate sexual behavior. Parent herself agreed that Student's IEP was being properly implemented and praised the district's services. The ALJ concluded the district's manifestation determination was thorough, properly conducted, and legally correct.

What Was Ordered

Student's appeal of the district's manifestation determination was denied.
The district prevailed on all issues.
No changes to Student's placement or services were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

A manifestation determination doesn't cover every disability — only diagnosed, eligible ones. The law focuses on whether the conduct was caused by the student's qualifying disability. In this case, Student had ADHD and depression that had never been formally identified through the IEP process. The district still considered them, but parents should understand that getting a student formally found eligible for all relevant disabilities before a disciplinary crisis occurs gives those disabilities more legal weight in a manifestation determination.
Procedural safeguards can be delivered the same day as the disciplinary decision — not before. Federal law does not require the district to send updated procedural safeguards in advance of a manifestation determination meeting. They must be provided no later than the date the district decides to take disciplinary action. Parents should request and carefully review safeguards as early as possible so they are prepared.
What you say (and don't say) at the manifestation determination meeting matters. In this case, Student declined to speak at the meeting on advice of counsel. While that is a legal right, it meant the team had no direct input from Student about his state of mind or any connection between his disability and his conduct. Parents and students should weigh carefully whether silence helps or hurts at these meetings.
Praising the district's services at the manifestation meeting can work against you. Parent told the team that Student's IEP was being implemented and complimented the district's services. The ALJ cited this directly as evidence that the second prong of the manifestation test — whether the conduct resulted from a failure to implement the IEP — was not met. If you have concerns about IEP implementation, raise them clearly and in writing before any disciplinary crisis occurs.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

Parent raised two main arguments, and the ALJ rejected both.

What Was Ordered

Student's appeal of the district's manifestation determination was denied.
The district prevailed on all issues.
No changes to Student's placement or services were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

A manifestation determination doesn't cover every disability — only diagnosed, eligible ones. The law focuses on whether the conduct was caused by the student's qualifying disability. In this case, Student had ADHD and depression that had never been formally identified through the IEP process. The district still considered them, but parents should understand that getting a student formally found eligible for all relevant disabilities before a disciplinary crisis occurs gives those disabilities more legal weight in a manifestation determination.
Procedural safeguards can be delivered the same day as the disciplinary decision — not before. Federal law does not require the district to send updated procedural safeguards in advance of a manifestation determination meeting. They must be provided no later than the date the district decides to take disciplinary action. Parents should request and carefully review safeguards as early as possible so they are prepared.
What you say (and don't say) at the manifestation determination meeting matters. In this case, Student declined to speak at the meeting on advice of counsel. While that is a legal right, it meant the team had no direct input from Student about his state of mind or any connection between his disability and his conduct. Parents and students should weigh carefully whether silence helps or hurts at these meetings.
Praising the district's services at the manifestation meeting can work against you. Parent told the team that Student's IEP was being implemented and complimented the district's services. The ALJ cited this directly as evidence that the second prong of the manifestation test — whether the conduct resulted from a failure to implement the IEP — was not met. If you have concerns about IEP implementation, raise them clearly and in writing before any disciplinary crisis occurs.