Jester v. District of Columbia, No. 05-7183 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 23, 2007)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled for purposes of the fee-shifting provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that an administrative hearing and a subsequent judicial action are one action for which the prevailing party can recover attorneys’ fees. Elizabeth Jester, as representative of student R.B., requested an administrative hearing under IDEA. D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) acceded to most of Ms. Jester’s requests during the hearing and paid her $4,094.80 in attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the hearing. Ms. Jester sued in federal district court to obtain judicial review of those of her requests denied during the hearing. The district court ruled in her favor on the remaining requests and ordered DCPS to pay her an additional $9,606.13 in fees and costs. DCPS appealed, arguing that the district court ruling violates a provision of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 2005 capping attorneys’ fees that D.C may pay to private parties in such cases at $4,000 "per action."
The D.C. Circuit found that the lower court awarded the additional fees and costs based on a district court decision in Kaseman v. District of Columbia, 355 F. Supp. 2d 205 (D.D.C. 2005), that was later reversed in Kaseman v. District of Columbia, 444 F.3d 637 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The appeals court concluded that for purposes of IDEA’s fee-shifting provision, the administrative hearing and subsequent judicial review are one action, for which there is only one award of attorneys’ fees and costs. To rule otherwise, the court reasoned, would mean that the parent could not recover fees from an unsuccessful action at the administrative stage even though the parent later prevailed in court, and that the parent could recover fees from the administrative stage even when the parent later lost in court. This, the court concluded, would be "senseless."
Jester v. District of Columbia, No. 05-7183 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 23, 2007)
[Full opinion]
[Editor’s Note: In a prior decision the D.C. Circuit, relying on Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001), ruled that parents who agree to private settlements of their IDEA claims prior to due process hearings are not "prevailing parties" and are not entitled to have their attorneys' fees paid by school districts. That opinion is summarized below.
[NSBA School Law pages on Alegria v. D.C.]