*3 undergo psycho- a comprehensive ROTH, Before GREENBERG purpose educational evaluation. The POLLAK,1 Judge. District Judge Circuit the evaluation was to assist the School creating District in a suitable Individual- THE OF COURT OPINION (“IEP”) ized Educational Plan for Rebec- ROTH, Judge. Circuit ca, required by IDEA.2 Personnel at Ed and Debbie Holmes Appellees at the Center for Deafness Western an action under the Individuals brought (the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf (“IDEA”), Education Act with Disabilities “WPSD”) IEE, performed an which was ., seq §§ 1400 et to recover 20 U.S.C. IEE paid by for District. The School These fees and attorney’s fees and costs. Rebecca’s IEP for the was the basis for by were incurred the Holmeses costs year. school 1992-93 the re-evaluation of challenging hearing IEP included Rebecca’s 1992-93 Holmes, Rebecca which was to daughter, lan- impaired support, speech theory, and Township by done the Millcreek School be addition, guage therapy. In Rebecca used (“School District”), in protesting interpreter hearing part-time aid and interpret- qualifications sign language of a interpret- services the classroom. assigned er whom the School District er, Feyas, employed by Kevin addition, daughter. with their In to work Septem- School District. by for reimbursement the Holmeses sued 1, 1992, DiFilippo was hired ber Chris District the costs of the 1994 the School the School District as Independent Educational Evaluation Valley. students at Belle deaf (“IEE”), per- which the Holmeses had had during the also worked with Rebecca trial, After a formed on Rebecca. bench year. 1992-93 school the District Court held entitled to fees and certain were IEP Rebecca continued with the same with the 1994 IEE and costs associated year. During school during the 1993-94 inter- challenge with the Holmeses’ 1994, however, the would School District preter’s qualifications. multi-disciplinary re- obligated be to do a of Rebecca. The re-evaluation evaluation appealed the The School District award eligi- continued Rebecca’s would determine to the Holmeses. We will of fees costs bility special education services and reverse the District Court’s conclusion Poliak, 2. See Part III.A. 1. Honorable Louis H. United States infra. Judge for the Eastern District District Court sitting by designation. Pennsylvania, April during period the 1994-95 school On plan recommend continuance, District asked the agree did not year. The Holmeses permission Holmeses for to re-evaluate proposed by of re-evaluation the method requested that the sign lan- Rebecca. Mrs. Holmes because a perform any testing, District not used. The School interpreter would be guage procedures that would evaluating, be or other that Rebecca should Holmeses believed be report in a written could people who could commu- result only by assessed multi-disciplin- language incorporated into Rebecca’s directly sign with her nicate (“MDT”) report. Mrs. Holmes ary team being tested. while she informed the District that she also 6, 1993, mid-way through December On require WPSD-approved per- would year, Mrs. Holmes grade Rebecca’s 6th *4 members of the MDT and sonnel be the District to have asked the School yet reports the she had not received part IEE of Rebecca as conduct an WPSD which the Holmeses had 1994 assessment Mrs. Holmes asked of the re-evaluation. by the In Mrs. had done WPSD. this second pay the District to School District Holmes advised the School pay District refused to IEE. The School opposed the use of an she by the WT’SD for additional assessments re-evaluation. the proposed perform its own re-evalua- but June, April, May, Dr. Rich- During informed the and tion. The District School Lansberry, psychologist, a school com- the District could ard School piled Comprehensive Rebecca’s Evaluation perform appropriate an re-evaluation-with (“CER”) Report familiar with for the MDT. The data experts, its own who were Rebecca, included the 1992 IEE of progress, her academic and the the CER WPSD Rebecca, Rebecca’s curriculum. evaluations from School District’s therapist, a speech language evalua- refused their After the School District by Feyas. tion of Rebecca Kevin Dr. W(PSD request to evaluate their have Lansberry informally also interviewed Re- arrange- the Holmeses made daughter, becca, inter- Feyas serving with Kevin ments themselves for a WPSD evaluation preter. 10, February Rebecca on 1994. The 28, reports. April again request- IEE of two Mrs. Holmes resulting consisted On first, description any testing a of Re- a detailed two-page re-evaluation ed skills, language was authored Rebecca District. She also sign becca’s by Marlene The sec- reminded the School District that she Schecter-Connors. ond, Summary,” any testing not consent to to re- ten-page a “Interview would prepared by psychologist, copy Dr. Paul Lo- evaluate Rebecca. A of the draft 7, July era. Dr. Loera met with Rebecca and her CER was sent to the Holmeses on 1994, days various materials nine after the WPSD’s 1994 reviewed reports in connec- IEE was transmitted to the School produced WPSD evaluation of Rebecca. District. tion with its first 4, 1994, year, March District At the start of the 1994-95 school
On held, process hearing meetings a due two MDT were request filed IEP proposed present, develop re- Holmeses appropriateness on of its resulting four-page evaluation of Rebecca. Prior to the hear- Rebecca. The CER that Rebecca “will have access to a ing, parties engaged mediation but stated interpreter throughout all of agreement. sign language were unable to reach an day” a continuance of her school and access to structured Holmeses then obtained CER, response they study guides. involved in In hearing because were dissenting opinion process proceeding concern- the Holmeses wrote another due Matthew, son, they they were dissatis- stated ing the education of Lansberry’s report. They fied with Dr. hearing-impaired. who is also that, tape, errors viewed the that the GER contained she been contended information, fact, important excluded complaint, aware of student’s she information about their and did not include would have to meet wanted with the stu- “the deaf com- exposing Rebecca to goal of get dent and further information before munity.” rendering an DiFilippo’s assessment of CER, skills. plan, The new based 14, 1994, September on
implemented process hearing began The due on Feb- 7, Despite through 1995. was valid June ruary 1995. The Holmeses had also CER, the Holmeses their dissent to the requested independent leave to obtain an object implementation to the did DiFilippo’s evaluation of skills. In addi- plan. this tion, they present had asked to evidence request- In January IEE regarding the reimbursement issue. of their re- process ed due consideration Although yet the School District had not IEE for reimbursement for the 1994 quest IEE, received a bill for the the Holmeses’ The bill for the performed by WSPD. counsel advised the School pre- IEE was The Holmeses $400. approximate cost of the IEE. sented this bill School District May January At February hearing, *5 had concerns with Holmeses also raised report. Holmeses received Hollrah’s At qualifications the School District about the time, the same Hearing the Officer an- DiFilippo. interpreter, of Rebecca’s Chris Marilyn nounced Mitchell Na- DiFilippo had become Rebecca’s full-time tional Technical Institute the Deaf interpreter 1994 after December DiFilippo’s evaluate would skills on behalf Hammer, interpreter, Tina Di- prior left. the of Holmeses. The Holmeses had cho- Filippo working with on a began Rebecca DiFilippo sen Mitchell to evaluate without 3, daily January basis on 1995. On Janu- District, input from the the School 23, ary complained after Rebecca about paid Holmeses for Mitchell’s services. On DiFilippo, requested a due 21, reported March Mitchell in her regarding process hearing qualifica- his in- opinion DiFilippo adequate was not an to hearing, tions. Prior the the School terpreter for Rebecca. provided the with evalu- District DiFilippo ations to demonstrate that was 8, however, prior to On March Mitchell’s Department of Education qualified. The report anyone before was familiar with had advised the School District to contact contents, DiFilippo requested to be re- its D.C., Hollrah Beverly Washington, interpreter position to be lieved of the DiFilippo’s conduct an evaluation of skills. position “special edu- transferred to the tape DiFilippo Hollrah inter- viewed request made cation assistant.” The was preting for Rebecca several classes. On part DiFilippo did not want to because 16, 1995, February Hollrah informed the potential the harass- undergo stress DiFilippo District that had done “a School hearing qualifications.3 ment on his very satisfactory job nice and of communi- 9, March District notified On the School cating presented the material in all classes DiFilippo applied the Holmeses that had videotaped.” deposed, When later howev- and, position, March the for the new on er, Hollrah stated that she did not know approved DiFilippo’s trans- School District DiFilippo qualified, whether was that she position special to the education fer unaware that a had chal- had been student when she re- assistant. lenged interpreting his skills DiFilippo qualifications. DiFilippo had attended already was familiar with such Chris hearings way brother Dean had served hearing, because his in which the witnessed unfolded, as an for Rebecca’s brother. process and seen that had process DiFilippo undergone a due Dean had against prevailed his brother. Holmeses had Holmeses, hearing, initiated over his it Hearing The concluded that was DiFilippo’s transfer to a new Officer
Despite process hearing “beyond scope hearing of this to deter- job, when the due Hearing Offi- only by on March if be assessed reconvened mine Rebecca must DiFilippo’s the issue of cer concluded that with her as people directly sign who can hearing was not moot. qualifications appropriate an eval- being she is tested for because he came to this conclusion officer uation.” DiFilippo’s qualifi- that a found decision July appealed. District On School Re- helpful resolving cations would be 28, 1995, Special Due Pro- Education compensatory education becca’s claim for Appeals unanimously Panel cess Review DiFilippo in which during period determina- Hearing reversed the Officer’s interpreter. as her served The Panel concluded that the School tion. District offered April On District did not have to reimburse the tutoring to Rebecca. The tutoring IEE Holmeses for the 1994 because forty each of the of one hour for consist error Hearing legal Officer had committed DiFilippo had worked with days seven when he did not consider whether Rebecca, in- although School provide “appropri- District could it not “[did] formed the Holmeses Instead, Hearing ate” re-evaluation. parents’ characterization agree with whether the Officer had focused on quali- that Mr. ... [was] derived from District had used information offer, rejected the fied.” The Holmeses the evaluation done the Holmeses’ ex- apparently because of Rebecca’s schedule perts.4 opinion in Quoting the Kozak activities. The School of extracurricular Disí., Hampton 655 A.2d Township Sch. what, other than the District then asked (Pa.Commw.1995), the Panel stat- help Rebec- tutoring, provided could be plain “[a]ccording language ed request- ca in The Holmeses her studies. *6 [Pennsylvania regulations], parents are en- math, subject study guides ed private titled to reimbursement for a eval- which the District had determined only private uation if ... evaluation weak, regardless of her Rebecca was shows the school district’s MDE to be disability. inappropriate.” The Panel further noted 1, 1995, days June after nine On requirement, that the Holmeses’ that the Hearing Officer decided proceedings, in sign language evaluator be fluent parents entitled to reim- were interpreter employed, that an not be had Specifically, bursement for the 1994 IEE. adopted by Pennsylvania not been either Hearing concluded that “it is Officer regulations. or federal statutes or For private clear that the evaluations secured reason, justi- the Holmeses were not parents provided meaningful infor- demanding fied in reimbursement for their helped the na- mation which to determine IEE on the basis that the re-evaluation disability ture and extent of Rebecca’s proposed by inap- the School District was The along necessary programming.” propriate. however, not, Hearing Officer did deter- Subsequently, sought pay- appropriate per- mine whether it was fees, up ment incurred to that form an Rebecca with the evaluation of time, $53,445.74. language interpreter. assistance of a the amount of sign Hearing interpreter remaining 4. Both the Officer and the Review and the sole issue was request whether for reimburse- Panel concluded that the issue of concerned settled; evaluations.”); DiFilippo thus, qualified independent App. had been ment for the 1332, ("Early neither one determined whether the in- n. the course of the terpreter qualified. app. protracted proceedings, See at 1318 the added issue of the ("When hearing began qualifications interpreter, and Rebecca's a second of Rebecca's corollary questions compensatory regarding qualifications interpret- edu- issue of her interpreter parties eventually er cation services and substitute was introduced ... resolved.”). agreement qualifications, were reached an on the issue of the School District the Holmeses’ claim denied II. Standard Review the ground that the had not The District Court’s findings of prevailing party been a process the due facts are reviewed for clear error. Sheet hearings. Metal Workers Local 19 v. 2300 Group, 1995, August On filed Holmeses Inc., (3d Cir.1991). 949 F.2d suit the United States District plenary We have review over the District Western of Pennsylvania. choice, Court’s interpretation applica They requested attorney’s fees costs tion of the law to the facts. Louis W. prevailing party as the within meaning Epstein Family Partnership v. Kmart of 20 § U.S.C. 1415. The Holmeses Corp., Cir.1994). 13 F.3d 765-66 claimed prevailing party to be the because Generally, we review a fee award for abuse 1) they were successful in re- demanding Stone, of discretion. Kean 966 F.2d 2) imbursement for the IEE and aas (3d Cir.1992). Where, however, the process result of the due hearings, question is whether the ap District Court reassigned District had DiFilippo, plied standard, the correct legal our review assigned had another to Re- is Id. plenary. becca, had compensatory offered education for the period that DiFilippo been had III. Discussion assigned, and agreed not to Chris use A. Statutory Framework or Dean DiFilippo as interpret- substitute ers. IDEA establishes require- minimum ments for the education of children with trial, 3-day
After a the District Court disabilities.5 The requires statute states announced its opinion from the bench. provide such children awith “free[and] The court found that the were appropriate public education,” prevailing party. It Ap- reversed the peals unique based on the Review Panel’s denial of needs each reimburse- individ- ment for the ual cost of the 1994 IEE student.6 20 because U.S.C. 1412. School portions of the IEE had been used districts goal achieve this by developing a School District to formulate IEP, Rebecca’s detailed plan, instructional an CER. analyze The court did not whether each who is child classified disabled. the School District could itself have con- 1401(a)(18). U.S.C. An IEP consists of ducted, conduct, or did appropriate re- specific statement present student’s *7 27, 1998, August evaluation. On the Dis- abilities, improvement goals of the stu- trict Court issued an order attor- awarding abilities, dent’s designed services to meet $141,070.28 ney’s fees of to the Holmeses. goals, those and a timetable for reaching the goals by way
The
appealed
School
the services.
Id. at
District
the award
1401(a)(20).
§
costs,
Congressional purpose
fees and
as well as the
enacting
award of costs
IDEA
provide
associated with
was to
the 1994
“access
jurisdiction
IEE. We have
appeal
appropriate public
this
to ‘free
education’ ...
pursuant
§
to 28
1291.
U.S.C.
which
...
...
is
sufficient to confer some
(A)
IDEA was
"to
enacted
assure that
chil-
provided
public expense,
all
have been
at
direction,
public supervision
under
dren with disabilities have available
and
and
to them
charge,
without
appropriate public
... a free
education
(B) meet the standards of the State edu-
emphasizes special education and related ser-
agency,
cational
designed
unique
vices
meet
their
needs
(C)
appropriate preschool,
include
ele-
rights
[and]
assure that the
of children with
mentary,
secondary
or
school education in
parents
guardians
disabilities and their
are
involved,
the State
and
1400(c).
protected.” 20 U.S.C. sec.
(D)
provided
conformity
are
program required
individualized education
public
6. A
appropriate
"free
is
education”
1414(a)(5)
under section
of this title.
401(a)(18)
defined
special
sec.
U.S.C.
§
("appropriate pro-
See also 22 Pa.Code
14.1
education and
gram”).
related services that—
way inap-
was in some
handicapped
the school’s MDE
upon
benefit
educational
Kozak,
Area the support no in Similarly, we find in evidence ever, sufficient we do not find that argument the Holmeses’ record for us that we should persuade to record the in the MDE Feyas’ participation Kevin and the Board findings of the second-guess Where inappropriate. it implies that was findWe District. opinion of the School the Feyas a that was suggest as the Holmeses the Lansberry, with Dr. indication no time that deaf at the teaching the novice hypo- the rather than Feyas, Kevin aid of interpreter, Lansberry’s as Dr. he served ASL, could trained psychologist thetical had Feyas Mr. shows that the record Dr. Rebecca. evaluate appropriately not years over two for worked with Rebecca that, of help with the Lansberry testified of preferred of her method aware was children translators, with deaf dealt he had Moreover, fa Feyas was communication. that the Although he believed past. in the curriculum and Valley Belle miliar with the with persons familiar should include MDT a by the as teach certified state had been could persons who child’s needs deaf Feyas hearing While impaired. er for child, directly with the deaf communicate of Registry Inter not certified be fluent that he had to agree he did not Deaf, registry, a national preters for the appropriately in order sign language an from provisional certification he had creating an of purposes for Rebecca assess the Council organization, national other pro- Lansberry that Dr. IEP. conclude We These facts do for the Deaf. Education concerning Re- information vided valuable Fe contention that support the Holmeses’ ser- interpreter for need increased becca’s in evaluating unqualified to assist yas was alia, inter Rebecca’s by assessing, vices Rebecca.11 impaired, her being hearing feelings about sum, no there has been services, In we hold that aca- her for desire District’s MDE showing that abilities, progress. academic and her demic inappropriate. we conclude determi- Moreover, District’s the School finding the District Court erred needs educational about Rebecca’s nations entitled to reim- that the Holmeses were year were based the 1994-95 school for As matter IEE. bursement MDT, than rather work of the entire law, they not. were any one expertise of member MDT, Lansberry. including Dr. Attorney’s Fees and Costs C. may be psychologists ASL-fluent While awarded attor The District ac- experts own the Holmeses’ preferred, be fees and costs to that, help ney’s of a trans- knowledged they prevailed had it found that stu- cause lator, evaluations deaf appropriate regarding the process hearing by professionals the due can be achieved dents As to DiFilippo’s qualifications. IEE and we in ASL. are not fluent who latter, found that argu- the Court District’s persuasive the School find objectives: three was Holmeses achieved ways in some ment staff posi from his had been removed the WPSD’s staff better-qualified than in interpreter, another instance, tion as Rebecca’s For evaluate Rebecca. assigned, and terpreter had been Rebecca were familiar School District’s staff compensatory education with had received Valley curriculum Belle note, appropriate Moreover, gation evaluation.” Appeals to conduct did we consent, Panel, Dr. a result of this denial denial of As Review Holmeses’ alia, reviewing, Lansberry inter testing was limited District for consent to the School and data about Rebec- previous evaluations of any with Rebecca other formal interaction ca, meetings with Rebecca "effectively and informal limited purposes of re-evaluation Feyas. interpreter, Mr. obli- performance its District's
593
period during
which
plished
objective);
worked
its
see also D.R. v. East
interpreter.
The
as
award of attor-
Educ.,
896, (3d
Brunswick Bd.
109 F.3d
of
$141,070.28.
ney’s fees and costs was
Cir.1997) (settlement agreement voluntari-
ly and willingly entered into by school
The Education of the Handi
district
parents
handicapped
of
child
capped Act’s fee-shifting provision states
during IDEA mediation created binding
that,
any
“[i]n
action or proceeding
contract
parties
between
and was enforce-
subsection,
brought
court,
under this
able);
Farrar v. Hobby,
103,
506 U.S.
cf.
discretion,
in its
may award reasonable
112,
566,
(1992)
113 S.Ct.
is a “causal connection between the litiga
may only be considered a prevailing party
tion and the relief from the defendant.”
if the
change
defendant’s
of conduct is
Institutionalized
Secretary
Juveniles v.
required
aby
“lengthy
lawsuit or a
en
Welfare,
897,
Pub.
758 F.2d
Cir.
forceable
agreement.”
settlement
1985);
E.g. Pa
see also Wheeler v. Towanda Area
E.
tricia
v. Board
Dist.,
128,
(3d Cir.1991).
Education
Com
Sch.
950 F.2d
munity High
155,
School Dist. No.
pressure
The
resulting from on-going liti
(N.D.Ill.1995).
F.Supp. 1161
gation
The
is sufficient
satisfy
this standard.
Baumgartner
argues
v.
Harrisburg
Auth.,
the facts of this case
Hous.
541,
(3d Cir.1994) (affirm
are at
21 F.3d
545-50
odds with this standard. The
ing viability
“catalyst
theory,” by
District also
asserts that the “but
plaintiffs are eligible
for” analysis
for fees without ob
employed by the District
taining a judgment
settlement,
or formal
Court does not comport
Baumgart-
long
they prove
as
that the suit aceom- ner. The School District contends that the
(TOC),
governing
Inc., - U.S. -,
12.
standards
693,
the award
at
vices
120 S.Ct.
torneys'
fees
ap
under
711-12,
U.S.C.
1988 are
(2000),
594
for
success
needed to demonstrate
change”
fa
change”
“legal
theory requires
catalyst
attorney’s fees
of
“but
of an award
purposes
that the
plaintiff and
the
vorable to
such
consistent with
is not
and costs.
analysis
for”
for”
the “but
change.
affirmative
from Wheel
distinguishable
case is
This
conception of
adequate
an
is not
analysis
Dist.,
F.2d
950
Area Sch.
er v. Towanda
... and the
fee-shifting]
IDEA
“[for
cause
(3d Cir.1991),
the
upon which
a case
be
prevailed
a party
of
question whether
the
challenging
in
relies
School District
than
rather
proceeding
legal
of the
cause
Wheeler,
par
the
award.
attorney’s fee
minimum,
is,
a
reason
at
other
some
challenged the
student
ents of
disabled
Board
causality.” See
about
question
of
assigned to
interpreter
the
of
qualifications
Dist.
School
Downers Grade
Education of
the
affirmed
child. We
work with their
(7th
L.,
F.3d
58 v. Steven
No.
attorney’s fee award
denial of
Cir.1996)
Griggsville
Brown
(quoting
at
challenge.
Id.
that
who made
parents
4, 12 F.3d
Dish
School
No.
Unit
Comm.
however,
so,
con
because we
did
132. We
Cir.1993)).
(7th
681, 684
not shown a
cluded that the
had
not a classic situa-
that this is
agree
We
the
of their
under either
causal connection
theory,
catalyst
the
application of
tion for
hiring
and the
their lawsuit
ories between
Educ., 998
River Bd.
B.K. v. Toms
that
Id.
noted
interpreter.
We
of a new
(D.N.J.1998),
rec-
because the
F.Supp. 462
searching for
begun
had
the school district
definitively that
the
show
ord does not
the reso
months before
interpreter
a new
DiFilippo
order
replaced
District
action initiated
the administrative
lution of
Rather,
the
the Holmeses.
appease
Wheelers, based,
on the fact
part,
by the
job of
DiFilippo left the
that
record shows
ill.
interpreter
the
fallen
that
Moreover,
the record
own accord.
his
contrast,
Dis-
that,
notifying the
affirmance of the
By
even when
our
shows
provide tutoring
it would
case is
finding
Holmeses that
this
based
trict Court’s
period
DiFilippo
that
for the
for Rebecca
from
DiFilippo’s departure
fact that
interpreter,
her
had served as
interpreter was
Rebecca’s
position
the
as
disagreement
its
maintained
District
actions,
the Holmeses’
motivated
qualifica-
his
opinion about
the Holmeses’
particular, the stress
harassment
tions.
might suffer as
DiFilippo
he
believed
Having
Nevertheless,
process hearing.
demon-
due
the
also
result of the
record
objective
having DiFilip-
of no
objective
that the Holmeses’
strates
achieved their
an inter-
DiFilippo serve as
having
longer
interpreter,
removed as Rebecca’s
po
a di-
was achieved as
for Rebecca
preter
at-
to an award of
Holmeses are entitled
hearing that
process
the due
rect result of
Texas
Teachers
torney’s
See
State
fees.
po-
It
they
was because
initiated.
791-93,
Ass’n,
at
109 S.Ct.
489 U.S.
and embarrassment
tential for stress
Nevertheless,
find that
we
job. Al-
interpreter’s
DiFilippo left the
First,
the award was excessive.
amount of
to leave
DiFilippo’s decision
though
prevailing
longer
no
are
Holmeses
take another
position
issue of reimbursement
party
job
seem
lower-paying)
may
(significantly
note that
IEE. In
we
the 1994
one, it
causal-
personal
to have been a
Appeals Re
Hearing Officer and
both the
initiation
ly
influenced
the Holmeses’
Panel felt
view
sat-
sequence of events
hearing.
This
to” the
their
had “contributed
counsel
See
Baumgartner
standard.
isfies
proceedings.” We
needlessly “protracted
That the
F.3d
547-48.
the bur
bear
also note that
period
tutoring to Rebecca for
offered
establishing
reasonableness
den
interpret-
during
required to
and are
requested fees
.
the inference
er buttresses
support
submit evidence
claims
DiFilippo’s qualifi-
challenge
Holmeses’
specified
performing
expended
hours
“legal
requisite
in the
cations resulted
Dellarciprete,
sure;
tasks. See Rode v.
892 F.2d
eighty-seven hours
taking
for the
*12
(3d
1177,
Cir.1990) (quoting
1183
Hensley,
and preparing
depositions
regarding
433,
1933);
461 U.S. at
Washing-
S.Ct.
DiFilippo’s qualifications; ten and one-half
ton,
tions, party prevail no could issue Thus,
and none has done so. we are not policy here with the
concerned consider i.e.,
ations we in Baumgartner, set forth if
a unilaterally defendant could moot the
underlying case conceding plain
tiffs attorneys might demands be reluc Stanley SMITH, Appellant bring tant to civil rights suits. Id. at 548. regard this I emphasize that there is no suggestion in the record that the defen CONTINI; Barnes; Robert John John dants acted collusion with DiFilippo to Krommenhoek; Muller; Richard Jer moot involving the issues him. ry McCormick; Lawrence McDer did not urge DiFilippo defendants to apply (name mott; being John Doe ficti position the new to which he was trans tious); Teamsters Local 641 Pension ferred. Fund; Lenten; Peter Van Robert Ci point I want to majority’s out that the rone, as Trustee of the Lo Teamsters opinion very significant as it cannot be Fund; cal 641 Pension Thomas Flan provision limited to IDEA cases. The nery, Trustee of the Teamsters Local may fee be awarded to “prevailing Fund Pension party” 1415(i)(3)(B) § in 20 U.S.C. is re- No. 99-5293. flected in other statutes. For example there are “prevailing party” provisions in United Appeals, States Court of the civil rights, U.S.C. and em- Third Circuit. ployment discrimination, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k), statutes. As a result of this Argued Jan. may case we anticipate that in future liti- Filed March gation plaintiffs in which obtain relief persons parties reason of the actions of litigation they will seek fees from the
defendants. I
Finally point want out that Supreme recently in Friends
Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental