Recent Pa. Decision Analyzes Fee-Shifting Under the IDEA

A recent decision in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania thoroughly discusses the fee-shifting mechanism set forth in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), wherein the prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs, 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(i)(3)(B). In I.W. v. School District of Philadelphia (E.D.Pa., Jan. 13, 2016), U.S. Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania provides a full analysis of when fee-shifting should occur and what fees should apply while rendering a decision relating to plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees and costs. The memorandum opinion is instructive to both attorneys for parents/students and school districts alike.

The underlying case arises from administrative proceedings brought by I.W., a student who was deemed eligible for special-education services under the IDEA and who was receiving programming and services from the School District of Philadelphia at two educational institutions. In May 2013, I.W.’s parent filed a due process complaint alleging that the district violated the IDEA by denying I.W. a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The complaint raised seven issues including, but not limited to, the district’s alleged failure to implement an appropriate individualized education plan (IEP); the district’s alleged failure to timely re-evaluate I.W.; the district should be required to develop an educational program at one educational institution; and the district should be required to provide compensatory education to I.W. After a settlement of one of the claims and nine due process hearings held between August 2013 and January 2014 covering the remaining claims, a hearing officer issued a written opinion March 13, 2014, in which she found in favor of I.W. on two of the seven claims. Since I.W. prevailed in the due process hearings, his attorneys promptly ­submitted their fees and costs to the district’s attorneys but the district did not respond or offer to pay any amount. Accordingly, I.W.’s attorneys filed the federal action to recover their fees and costs pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(i)(3)(B).