Giosta v. Midland School District 7
542 F. App'x 523
7th Cir.2013Background
- Parents Terry and Gloria Giosta challenged Midland High School’s special-education program for their daughter T.G. for grades 7–9 (2006–2008), alleging the IEP was deficient and not fully implemented.
- Alleged deficiencies included lack of research-based instruction, missing occupational therapy, failure to record lectures, and denial of computer access; parents sought compensatory services, evaluations, assistive technology ($10,000), and findings of violations.
- An administrative hearing officer found the school “largely succeeded,” denying most requests but ordered limited relief: three hours/week additional reading and writing instruction for ninth grade and a new vocational evaluation.
- The Giostas sought district-court review and attorneys’ fees as a prevailing party under the IDEA.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the school, held the hearing officer’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, acknowledged the parents were prevailing parties only to a minor extent, and denied attorneys’ fees as de minimis under Farrar.
- The Giostas appealed the denial of fees and raised a new argument about lack of notice of rights transfer at age 18, which they had not raised below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to attorneys’ fees under IDEA | Parents argued they prevailed and are entitled to fees for administrative victory. | School argued parents’ success was minimal and did not justify fees. | Court: Parents technically prevailed but success was de minimis; Farrar permits denying fees for minor victories, so no fees awarded. |
| Challenge based on notice of transfer of rights at age 18 | Parents contended they lacked notice that special-education rights would transfer at 18. | School argued issue not raised below and unrelated to 2006–2008 relief. | Court: Argument waived on appeal for being raised first time on appeal; also not shown to pertain to claimed period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) (extent of plaintiff’s success determines fee award; minimal success can justify zero fees)
- Linda T. ex rel. William A. v. Rice Lake Area Sch. Dist., 417 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2005) (applies Farrar in IDEA context)
- Monticello Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. George L. ex rel. Brock L., 102 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 1996) (applies Farrar in IDEA fee disputes)
- Larson v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 723 F.3d 905 (7th Cir. 2013) (arguments raised for first time on appeal are waived)