District Wins: Marijuana Possession Not a Manifestation of Student's Learning Disability

A 14-year-old student with a specific learning disability was found in possession of marijuana and tobacco on campus and faced expulsion proceedings. The parent challenged the district's manifestation determination, arguing the behavior was related to the student's disability. The ALJ upheld the district's finding that possession of a controlled substance was not caused by or directly related to the student's learning disability, and denied all of the student's requested relief.

What Happened

Student was a 14-year-old attending Piute Intermediate School in the Lancaster Elementary School District, eligible for special education services under the category of Specific Learning Disability (SLD). His disability involved a severe discrepancy between his intellectual ability and his academic achievement in reading, math calculation, and math reasoning, along with deficits in sensory motor skills and auditory phonological processing. On June 1, 2007, a security guard found Student in possession of marijuana and tobacco on campus. The district suspended him for five days and, within the required ten school days, convened an IEP team meeting on June 8, 2007 to conduct a manifestation determination.

At the June 8, 2007 meeting, the IEP team — including the school psychologist, Student's special day class (SDC) teacher, Parents, and Student's educational advocate — reviewed Student's IEP, placement, and the circumstances of the incident. The team concluded that Student's possession of a controlled substance was not caused by, or directly related to, his SLD. The team recommended referring Student for an expulsion hearing, though it also agreed to keep Student in his SDC placement through independent study for the remaining two weeks of school, increase counseling services, and develop a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP). Parents signed the IEP agreeing to the placement and services but objected to the referral for expulsion. Student's attorney filed for an expedited due process hearing, arguing the manifestation determination was wrong and that the referral for expulsion denied Student a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found in favor of the district on both issues. First, the ALJ determined that the district properly followed all required disciplinary procedures. The manifestation determination meeting was held within the required ten school days, included the appropriate team members, reviewed all relevant information, and analyzed Student's behavior across settings and over time. The school psychologist, who had evaluated Student and was very familiar with his disability profile, credibly testified that Student's SLD did not impair his ability to understand school rules or control the behavior in question. The ALJ found this testimony persuasive.

Second, the ALJ found that Student failed to demonstrate any connection between his SLD — which affected reading, math, and sensory motor processing — and his decision to possess marijuana and tobacco on campus. Student did not show that the district failed to implement his IEP, nor that his disability caused or was directly related to the conduct. The ALJ also noted that the district's Pupil Safety and Attendance Officer ultimately decided not to pursue expulsion at all, because Student was graduating from the district (a K-8 district) and would not be enrolled during any potential expulsion period. Student finished the school year on independent study, was promoted, and matriculated out of the district. The referral for expulsion was the first step in a process that never resulted in actual expulsion, and therefore did not deny Student FAPE.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied. The district prevailed on both issues — the propriety of the manifestation determination and the FAPE question — and no remedies were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

A learning disability does not automatically protect a student from expulsion. To succeed in a manifestation determination challenge, parents must show a real, documented connection between the student's specific disability and the specific behavior at issue. A general diagnosis of SLD affecting reading or math does not automatically relate to every type of misconduct, such as drug possession.
The manifestation determination process has specific legal requirements — know them. The IEP team must review all relevant information, analyze behavior across settings and over time, and include the right people. If the district fails to follow these procedural steps, that is a separate and valid ground to challenge the outcome — even if the substantive conclusion might be correct.
Referral for expulsion is not the same as expulsion. In this case, the process was initiated but never completed because the district's own review officer determined expulsion was not appropriate. Parents should understand that a recommendation to refer for expulsion triggers rights and protections, but it does not mean expulsion will happen.
Services must continue during any disciplinary removal. Even when conduct is found not to be a manifestation of a disability, the district is still required to provide educational and behavioral services in an alternative setting. In this case, the district continued SDC instruction through independent study and increased counseling — and the ALJ noted this as evidence that FAPE was maintained.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied. The district prevailed on both issues — the propriety of the manifestation determination and the FAPE question — and no remedies were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

A learning disability does not automatically protect a student from expulsion. To succeed in a manifestation determination challenge, parents must show a real, documented connection between the student's specific disability and the specific behavior at issue. A general diagnosis of SLD affecting reading or math does not automatically relate to every type of misconduct, such as drug possession.
The manifestation determination process has specific legal requirements — know them. The IEP team must review all relevant information, analyze behavior across settings and over time, and include the right people. If the district fails to follow these procedural steps, that is a separate and valid ground to challenge the outcome — even if the substantive conclusion might be correct.
Referral for expulsion is not the same as expulsion. In this case, the process was initiated but never completed because the district's own review officer determined expulsion was not appropriate. Parents should understand that a recommendation to refer for expulsion triggers rights and protections, but it does not mean expulsion will happen.
Services must continue during any disciplinary removal. Even when conduct is found not to be a manifestation of a disability, the district is still required to provide educational and behavioral services in an alternative setting. In this case, the district continued SDC instruction through independent study and increased counseling — and the ALJ noted this as evidence that FAPE was maintained.