66 F. Supp. 3d 75
D.D.C.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Anne and Brantley Davis sue the District of Columbia for IDEA, Rehabilitation Act, and ADA violations related to their son B.D.'s education by DCPS.
- B.D. is a disabled student with learning, ADHD, physical health, motor, behavioral, sensory, and social challenges.
- DCPS funded Kingsbury Day School from mid-2006 to mid-2009; since June 2009 B.D. has attended school with peers for only one month.
- Plaintiffs pursued administrative challenges to B.D.’s IEPs and sought FAPE; a settlement in 2012 reimbursed $1,000 for a private psychological examination.
- The Consent Order in Case No. 2012-0730 did not include court approval or continuing judicial oversight, affecting prevailing party status; the Amended Complaint also seeks attorney’s fees and various OSSE-related relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing party status for attorney’s fees | Davis sought fees as prevailing party under IDEA | Consent Order lacked court approval/oversight, not a prevailing result | Not a prevailing party; fees denied on Count One |
| Discrimination under ADA/Rehabilitation Act | Discrimination occurred due to disability in services | No evidence of disability-based treatment or bad faith | Claims fail for lack of evidence of disability-based discrimination |
| Retaliation under ADA/Rehabilitation Act | DCPS retaliated for advocacy on B.D.'s behalf | Retaliation claim contradicted by legal reporting duties | Claim fails; alleged retaliation not plead as protected activity and actions required by law were proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Lunceford v. District of Columbia Bd. of Educ., 745 F.2d 1577 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (discrimination standard under Rehabilitation Act requires more than failure to provide FAPE)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't Health & Human Res.,, 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (prevailing party requires material alteration of the legal relationship)
- Alegria v. District of Columbia, 391 F.3d 262 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (consent decree can convey prevailing party status with court approval)
- Bush ex rel. A.H. v. District of Columbia, 579 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 2008) (court approval and continuing oversight required for prevailing party status)