A Washington state appeals court has affirmed a Superior Court’s ruling, finding that an Administrative Law Judge erred when he expanded the scope of a Title IX investigation of a school district beyond the initial complaint.
Specifically, the judge “failed to follow prescribed procedures by addressing (a school district’s) overall accommodation of its students’ athletic interests without proper notice and without allowing the (school district) to investigate and produce its own suggested remedies.”
Plaintiff Mark Rossmiller’s daughter competes on the Mountain View High School tennis team, which is in the Evergreen (Washington) School District. “Concerned that his daughter was not getting adequate attention or opportunity to play, Rossmiller began doing research on the District’s treatment of girl athletes,” wrote the court, noting that he gathered information from the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and Washington Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA), as well as from public disclosure requests.
Rossmiller’s research revealed that fewer girls participate in athletics than their statistical representation in the population suggests they should. On June 22, 2004, he sent a letter to the District superintendent complaining about the treatment of his daughter and girls in the district. Specifically, he identified the girls’ tennis programs and its lack of adequate facilities, equipment, and coaching to meet the level of interest in the sport. The letter then demanded that the District increase the number of tennis courts and coaches and also provide uniforms and warm-ups for the girls’ tennis teams.
The case ultimately percolated up to an ALJ, who ordered the district to investigate Rossmiller complaint. The District found the plaintiff’s claims to be unsubstantiated. Rossmiller appealed to the ALJ. This time, the ALJ ruled that the District “failed to effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of its students.” It went on to order the OPSI to place the District on probation until it “created a new procedure for addressing complaints and it achieved equal opportunity for each sex.”
The District appealed the decision to the superior court, and the superior court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part. Specifically, the superior court affirmed the portion of the ALJ’s order requiring the District to create a more effective procedure for processing complaints.
The plaintiff appealed, but his argument was unconvincing.
Quoting the superior court, the appeals court noted that “the purpose of requiring specificity is to assure that school districts have an adequate opportunity to investigate and respond to local conditions brought to their attention. If an investigation can be triggered merely by a general assertion that students are treated unfairly, then there is no need for a complaint at all. Each complaint would force the District to conduct a broad-ranging and unfocused investigation, which might not adequately address the specific circumstances of concern to the complaining party.”
The ALJ made the mistake when it “considered evidence and entered findings on an issue for which the District had inadequate notice and which was not included in the prehearing order.”
“In this case, the District did not study its overall program. And because Rossmiller only presented evidence regarding the tennis program, the ALJ necessarily had an incomplete picture from which to craft a remedy for an essentially systemic problem. We agree with the superior court that the ALJ erred in interpreting and applying the law, and failed to follow prescribed procedures by addressing the District’s overall accommodation of its students’ athletic interests without proper notice and without allowing the District to investigate and produce its own suggested remedies as WAC 392-190-065(2)-(3) required. 4 We reverse the ALJ’s findings, conclusions, and remedies on this issue. Because this claim was inadequate, and because the equal treatment claim was abandoned, we strike all remedies. Of course, Rossmiller or another party can file their complaint anew and give the District proper notice.”
In the Matter of Evergreen School District; Ct. App. Wash., Div. 2; No. 35127-7-II, 2007 Wash. App. LEXIS 1684; 6/19/07
