McCrary v. District of Columbia
791 F. Supp. 2d 191
D.D.C.2011Background
- Barbara McCrary sued on behalf of her minor daughter S.M. under the IDEA seeking attorney fees after a due process hearing.
- A Hearing Officer found DCPS denied S.M. a FAPE in SY 2006/07 due to an inappropriate placement at the Public Charter.
- The HOD dismissed most claims, but ordered a placement meeting for the 2008/09 school year and found the Charter was not an inappropriate placement for SY 2007/08.
- Plaintiff then sought fees claiming she prevailed at the hearing; defendants argued she did not prevail.
- The district court analyzed whether plaintiff was the prevailing party under Buckhannon and related caselaw, focusing on whether the relief granted changed the legal relationship or provided judicial relief.
- The court held that the HOD’s denial of FAPE and the placement meeting order did not amount to a court-ordered change in the parties’ legal relationship or provide judicial relief, so plaintiff was not a prevailing party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was McCrary a prevailing party under IDEA fees? | McCrary prevailed by obtaining a FAPE-denial finding and relief. | No prevailing party because relief was not court-ordered relief altering the legal relationship. | No; plaintiff not prevailing party. |
| Does Buckhannon apply to determine prevailing party status in IDEA cases? | Buckhannon supports treating the hearing as a victory for which fees may be awarded. | Buckhannon requires a court-ordered change in the legal relationship or judicial relief; not present here. | Buckhannon applies; no prevailing party here. |
| Did the placement meeting order constitute judicial relief? | Placement meeting order changed the parties’ relationship favoring McCrary. | Placement meeting is not relief; it is a step to proceed, not a remedy enforcing a change. | Order did not constitute judicial relief. |
| Did the 2006/07 FAPE denial alone make McCrary a prevailing party? | Finding of denial was a judgment in her favor. | No relief beyond a meeting; no judicial relief tied to the merits of the claim. | Denial alone did not confer prevailing party status. |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1982) (educational benefit standard for FAPE under IDEA)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2001) (prevailing party requires court-ordered relief or victory on merits)
- Alegria v. District of Columbia, 391 F.3d 262 (D.C. Cir., 2004) (Buckhannon guidance applied to IDEA fee eligibility)
- Thomas v. National Science Foundation, 330 F.3d 486 (D.C. Cir., 2003) (three-part test for prevailing-party status requiring court-ordered relief)
- District of Columbia v. Straus, 590 F.3d 898 (D.C. Cir., 2010) (denial of attorney fees where no prevailing-party status under Buckhannon)