Student's Assault on Staff Found Not a Manifestation of Learning Disability

A 14-year-old student with a specific learning disorder and speech-language impairment was expelled after shoving his instructional assistant against a wall while resisting cell phone confiscation. The parent challenged the district's manifestation determination, arguing the conduct was caused by his disabilities. The ALJ found the conduct was not related to the student's disabilities and that the district followed proper procedures, ruling in favor of the district.

What Happened

A 14-year-old ninth grader with a specific learning disorder (auditory memory and language processing deficits) and a speech-language impairment attended Golden Valley High School with a full-time one-on-one instructional assistant (IA). On March 3, 2009, the student repeatedly used his cell phone during school hours in violation of school policy. When his IA, Zachary Wells, moved to confiscate the phone, the student cursed at him, shoved him forcefully against a wall, and walked away. The student had already accumulated 10 suspension days that year, so this additional suspension constituted a change of placement, triggering a required manifestation determination.

The parent filed for due process, arguing two things: (1) the student's conduct was caused by or directly related to his disabilities, and (2) the district violated her procedural rights by holding the manifestation determination IEP meeting on March 9, 2009 without her present. The district had sent two written notices and made four phone calls to the parent attempting to schedule the meeting, but she declined to participate, stated she was unavailable all of March, and told the district to "do what it was going to do" before hanging up. The IEP team proceeded without her and determined the conduct was not a manifestation of his disabilities.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district on both the procedural and substantive issues:

The shove was not caused by the student's disabilities. The student's learning disorder involved auditory memory and language processing deficits. There was no evidence that these disabilities prevented him from understanding directions to stop using or surrender his phone. He fully understood what was being asked — he simply refused to comply. His decision to use force to keep his phone had no connection to his SLD or speech-language impairment.
Anger at rule enforcement is not a disability symptom. The student and parent testified that he becomes angry when things don't go his way. The ALJ noted that this is not a characteristic unique to people with disabilities and does not justify violence against a school employee. No credentialed professional testified that any causal link existed between the student's conduct and his disabilities.
The student's IEP noted he could control his behavior when he chose to. His behavior support plan was in place and there was no evidence it had not been implemented.
The district met its procedural obligations. Two written notices (with procedural safeguards attached) and four phone calls gave the parent adequate notice of the March 9 meeting. The district offered to reschedule for the very next morning; the parent refused and offered no alternative dates within the legally required 10-school-day window. The district properly documented its attempts and was justified in proceeding without her.
The student's credibility was undermined. Eyewitness testimony from the associate principal confirmed the IA's account that the student shoved him against the wall. The student's version — that he merely removed a hand from his shoulder — was found not credible. His refusal to let anyone examine his phone (which would have shown whether he was texting) was treated as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

What Was Ordered

The student's request for relief from the manifestation determination was denied in its entirety.
The district's manifestation determination — that the conduct was not a manifestation of the student's disabilities — was upheld.
No change of placement was ordered, meaning the expulsion was permitted to stand.

Why This Matters for Parents

The connection between disability and conduct must be direct and specific. To win a manifestation determination challenge, you need to show that the student's specific disability symptoms — not just having a disability — caused or substantially contributed to the behavior. General statements that a child "gets angry" are not enough. If possible, have a qualified professional (psychologist, behaviorist) document the link between the disability and the specific type of behavior at issue.
Show up to the manifestation determination meeting — or lose your seat at the table. A district can legally hold the meeting without you if it has made reasonable efforts to include you and you refuse to participate. Not responding to notices and calls, then declaring yourself unavailable for an entire month, is treated as a choice to exclude yourself — not a procedural violation by the district.
Respond to IEP notices promptly and in writing. If you cannot attend a scheduled meeting, contact the district immediately, in writing, and propose specific alternative dates within the required 10-school-day window. Vague unavailability will not protect your rights.
A behavior support plan in the IEP helps — but only if it connects behavior to disability. This student had a BSP, but it did not help him at the hearing because there was no evidence linking his aggressive behavior to his learning disabilities. Work with the IEP team to document the behavioral manifestations of your child's specific disability in detail, so that connection is clear if discipline ever arises.
Credibility matters at hearing. The ALJ closely observed how the student and witnesses testified. Evasiveness, inconsistency, and refusal to cooperate with fact-finding (like hiding a phone that could verify your story) can significantly hurt a parent's case. Before a hearing, prepare your child and yourself to testify clearly, consistently, and honestly.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district on both the procedural and substantive issues:

The shove was not caused by the student's disabilities. The student's learning disorder involved auditory memory and language processing deficits. There was no evidence that these disabilities prevented him from understanding directions to stop using or surrender his phone. He fully understood what was being asked — he simply refused to comply. His decision to use force to keep his phone had no connection to his SLD or speech-language impairment.
Anger at rule enforcement is not a disability symptom. The student and parent testified that he becomes angry when things don't go his way. The ALJ noted that this is not a characteristic unique to people with disabilities and does not justify violence against a school employee. No credentialed professional testified that any causal link existed between the student's conduct and his disabilities.
The student's IEP noted he could control his behavior when he chose to. His behavior support plan was in place and there was no evidence it had not been implemented.
The district met its procedural obligations. Two written notices (with procedural safeguards attached) and four phone calls gave the parent adequate notice of the March 9 meeting. The district offered to reschedule for the very next morning; the parent refused and offered no alternative dates within the legally required 10-school-day window. The district properly documented its attempts and was justified in proceeding without her.
The student's credibility was undermined. Eyewitness testimony from the associate principal confirmed the IA's account that the student shoved him against the wall. The student's version — that he merely removed a hand from his shoulder — was found not credible. His refusal to let anyone examine his phone (which would have shown whether he was texting) was treated as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

What Was Ordered

The student's request for relief from the manifestation determination was denied in its entirety.
The district's manifestation determination — that the conduct was not a manifestation of the student's disabilities — was upheld.
No change of placement was ordered, meaning the expulsion was permitted to stand.

Why This Matters for Parents

The connection between disability and conduct must be direct and specific. To win a manifestation determination challenge, you need to show that the student's specific disability symptoms — not just having a disability — caused or substantially contributed to the behavior. General statements that a child "gets angry" are not enough. If possible, have a qualified professional (psychologist, behaviorist) document the link between the disability and the specific type of behavior at issue.
Show up to the manifestation determination meeting — or lose your seat at the table. A district can legally hold the meeting without you if it has made reasonable efforts to include you and you refuse to participate. Not responding to notices and calls, then declaring yourself unavailable for an entire month, is treated as a choice to exclude yourself — not a procedural violation by the district.
Respond to IEP notices promptly and in writing. If you cannot attend a scheduled meeting, contact the district immediately, in writing, and propose specific alternative dates within the required 10-school-day window. Vague unavailability will not protect your rights.
A behavior support plan in the IEP helps — but only if it connects behavior to disability. This student had a BSP, but it did not help him at the hearing because there was no evidence linking his aggressive behavior to his learning disabilities. Work with the IEP team to document the behavioral manifestations of your child's specific disability in detail, so that connection is clear if discipline ever arises.
Credibility matters at hearing. The ALJ closely observed how the student and witnesses testified. Evasiveness, inconsistency, and refusal to cooperate with fact-finding (like hiding a phone that could verify your story) can significantly hurt a parent's case. Before a hearing, prepare your child and yourself to testify clearly, consistently, and honestly.