Dudley v. Lower Merion School District
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10590
| E.D. Pa. | 2011Background
- Dudley and W.J.W. allege IDEA violations against Lower Merion School District; W.J.W. is an 18-year-old African American student with a longstanding SLD requiring special ed and emotional supports.
- A due process complaint was filed July 1, 2009, seeking FAPE, IEE, compensatory education, intensive instruction, and an additional year of secondary education.
- Hearing officer granted partial relief: FAPE in most respects, ordered compensatory education (emotional support, math/reading), and an extra year with a transition plan and placement options.
- Plaintiffs allege district failed to comply with hearing officer’s order for 2010-2011 placement and services; district purportedly offered only limited instruction and allowed W.J.W. to reject emotional support.
- Counts II and III seek attorney’s fees and enforcement of favorable aspects of the hearing officer’s decision; district moves to dismiss these counts for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- Decision denies district’s motion to dismiss Counts II and III; unresolved issues include entitlement to fees and enforcement under IDEA or § 1983.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs may obtain attorneys’ fees under IDEA. | Dudley prevails on significant issues; fees warranted. | Fees not proper if not prevailing on significant issues. | Plaintiffs prevail on significant issues; fees allowed. |
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees for pro bono work by Julia Schofield. | Attorney worked voluntarily; fee award permissible per Supreme Court. | Pro bono work cannot yield fees. | Count II survives; pro bono credit does not bar fees. |
| Whether the claim for enforcement of the hearing officer’s order is viable under IDEA or § 1983. | Aggrieved party may enforce administrative relief under IDEA; possible injunctive relief under § 1983. | Lacks jurisdiction under IDEA or § 1983 for enforcement. | Count III viable under the IDEA; § 1983 basis not needed. |
| Whether the IDEA provides a judicial remedy to enforce favorable hearing officer decisions when the district fails to implement. | Reading IDEA as providing enforcement remedies avoids a loophole. | Enforcement not clearly provided when district fails to implement. | IDEA authorizes enforcement; no need to rely on § 1983. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) (prevailing party standard; relief must alter the legal relationship)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (reasonableness of fee award based on overall success)
- Texas State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782 (1989) (generous view of prevailing party status)
- J.O. v. Orange Twp. Bd. of Educ., 287 F.3d 267 (3d Cir. 2002) (fee shifting under IDEA for prevailing parents)
- Arons v. N.J. Bd. of Educ., 842 F.2d 58 (3d Cir. 1988) (fee eligibility for parents under IDEA)
- Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (1989) (pro bono work does not preclude fee)
- Maldonado v. Houstoun, 256 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2001) (pro bono considerations in fee awards)
- Jeremy H. v. Mount Lebanon School District, 95 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 1996) (enforcement of hearing officer decisions under IDEA; §1983 noted)
- A.W. v. Jersey City Pub. Sch., 486 F.3d 791 (3d Cir. 2007) (en banc; Congress intended limits on §1983 relief for IDEA violations)
- D.S. v. Bayonne Bd. of Educ., 602 F.3d 553 (3d Cir. 2010) (aggrieved status and IDEA remedies)
- Komninos v. Upper Saddle River Bd. of Educ., 13 F.3d 775 (3d Cir. 1994) ( IDEA enforcement considerations)
- First Merch. Acceptance Corp. v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 198 F.3d 394 (3d Cir. 1999) (statutory interpretation context)