794 F.3d 15
D.C. Cir.2015Background
- Parents of special-needs students in D.C. sued the District under IDEA and prevailed; they sought attorney’s fees under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B).
- Plaintiffs requested roughly $386,000; the district court awarded $159,133 after disallowing over half, including $23,757 billed for Sharon Millis.
- The district court concluded Millis was an independent special-education expert (not a paralegal) based on her résumé, the firm founder’s affidavit, and billing records showing substantive expert tasks.
- The court held that fees for experts are not recoverable as part of “reasonable attorneys’ fees” under IDEA and denied recovery for Millis’s time.
- Plaintiffs appealed only the denial of fees for Millis, arguing she was a paralegal whose work fits Jenkins; the District argued Murphy and Casey bar recovery of expert fees under IDEA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fees for Millis are recoverable as part of "reasonable attorneys’ fees" under IDEA | Millis was a paralegal performing delegated substantive legal work and thus recoverable under Jenkins | IDEA does not require states to pay expert fees; Murphy/Casey foreclose recovery for experts | Court held Millis was an expert, not a paralegal, and her fees are not recoverable under IDEA |
| Whether IDEA’s fee provision gives states clear notice to reimburse expert fees | Tyrka: firm-employed specialist billed as attorney work, so Jenkins applies | District: Murphy requires unambiguous notice under Spending Clause; none exists for expert fees | Court held plaintiffs failed to show IDEA gives unambiguous notice that expert fees are state-liable |
| Whether billing arrangement (hired by firm vs. retained independently) affects recoverability | Millis was employed by counsel and supervised, so fees should count as attorney fees | Murphy rejects recovery whether expert is retained by parent or independent | Court held employment by firm does not overcome Murphy/Casey bar |
| Whether plaintiffs preserved argument that specialized paralegals perform Millis’s tasks | Plaintiffs argued at oral argument that special-education paralegals do such work | District noted lack of record support and forfeiture | Court found argument forfeited and unsupported; upheld district court's factual finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274 (1989) (paralegal fees may be recoverable as part of reasonable attorney’s fees)
- West Virginia Univ. Hospitals v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83 (1991) (expert fees are distinct litigation costs, not included within a reasonable attorney’s fee)
- Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006) (under IDEA’s Spending Clause framework, Congress must give states unambiguous notice to be liable for expert fees)
- City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992) (limits on types of fees recoverable under fee-shifting statutes)
- Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (2011) (fee-shifting statutes reimburse plaintiffs for litigation costs to vindicate civil rights)