As many school districts, county offices of education and charter schools (“LEAs”) continue to face extreme financial hardships the proposition of having attorney’s fees awarded to an LEA for legal expenses associated with defending a due process hearing has becomes more alluring. While the IDEA allows LEAs to recover attorney’s fees, the circumstances under which the fees for an LEA can be awarded are significantly limited.
Under current law a court can award attorney’s fees "to a prevailing party who is an SEA or LEA against the attorney of a parent who files a complaint or subsequent cause of action that is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, or against the attorney of a parent who continued to litigate after the litigation clearly became frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation." (20 USC Section 1415(i)(3)(B); 34 CFR Section 300.517(a)(1)(ii)) Fees can also be awarded "to a prevailing SEA or LEA against the attorney of a parent, or against the parent, if the parent's request for a due process hearing or subsequent cause of action was presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation." (34 CFR Section 300.517(a)(1)(iii))
Prevailing Alone Is Not Enough
While an LEA must be established as the prevailing party in order to recover attorney's fees for frivolous, unreasonable, or baseless litigation, Oscar v. Alaska Dep't of Educ. and Early Dev., 50 IDELR 211 (9th Cir. 2008), that alone does not necessarily entitle the LEA to a recovery of fees. Just because student did not prevail on some or all of due process complaint issues/claims does not automatically render those claims frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or for improper purposes. R.P. v. Prescott Unified School District, 56 IDELR 31 (9th Cir. 2011) The burden is on the LEA to produce evidence to the court that the student failed to present evidence during the due process hearing that would entitle him/her to relief and that the claims against the LEA were knowingly baseless or for improper purposes.
Recognizing Frivolous Claims
The good news is that courts recognize a frivolous complaint when they see one. In a recent California decision, the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, gave the green light for an Orange County school district to seek recovery of attorney’s fees. The case involved allegations that the District unreasonably delayed filing for due process after the parent objected to a student’s triennial evaluation. The Court found that the mother’s vague objections and her characterization of the assessment reports as “stupid” coupled with her counsel’s general arguments during the hearing were frivolous. The Court noted in its decision that “[t]he frivolous arguments advanced by the Mother in this case have forced District to incur expenses in this litigation that could have funded special education of students with disabilities, including Mother’s own child. If the District wishes to recover these expenses so as to provide services to Student and other children like her, District is free to file a motion to do so.” C.W. v. Capistrano Unified School District, 112 LRP 39913 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Clean Hands
Even when the student’s allegations are determined frivolous, unreasonable without foundation, or for improper purposes, the LEA must be found to have clean hands. Even where there is proof of unjustifiable litigation on behalf of the student, the inappropriate action by the student can be offset by inappropriate actions of the LEA. Where such a finding exists the award of attorney’s fees for an LEA can be decreased or negated all together.
In an August 8, 2012 decision by the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, the Court awarded the student and the LEA $5,170 each in attorney’s fees. The decision indicates that the Court’s intent was to offset each party’s fees so that neither party could benefit, due to separate acts of purported wrongdoing in the eyes of the Court. M.M and E.M v. LaFayette School District, 112 LRP 40570 (N.D. Cal. 2012)
Many factors must be taken into account when an LEA is considering seeking an award of attorney’s fees following a successful due process hearing. The involvement of counsel is advisable to ensure that all legal and practical issues are considered and addressed.
- Partner
Adam Newman is the chair of the firm’s state-wide Student Services and Disability Law Practice Group. Mr. Newman has many years of experience advising and representing public school districts, SELPAs and county offices of ...
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- Don't Start from Scratch: Our AI Policy Toolkit Has Your District Covered
- Slurs and Epithets in the College Classroom: Are they protected speech?
- AALRR’s 2024 Title IX Virtual Academy
- Unmasking Deepfakes: Legal Insights for School Districts
- How to Address Employees’ Use of Social Media
- How far is too far? Searching Students’ Homes and Remote Test Proctoring
- Making Cybersecurity a Priority
- U.S. Department of Education Issues Proposed Amendments to Title IX Regulations
- Inadvertent Disability Discrimination May Lurk in Hiring Software, Artificial Intelligence and Algorithms
- Students and Social Media – Can Schools Discipline Students for Off-Campus Speech?
Popular Categories
- (55)
- (12)
- (81)
- (96)
- (43)
- (53)
- (22)
- (40)
- (11)
- (22)
- (6)
- (4)
- (3)
- (2)
- (3)
- (2)
- (4)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Steven J. Andelson
- Ernest L. Bell
- Matthew T. Besmer
- William M. Betley
- Mark R. Bresee
- W. Bryce Chastain
- J. Kayleigh Chevrier
- Andreas C. Chialtas
- Georgelle C. Cuevas
- Scott D. Danforth
- Alexandria M. Davidson
- Mary Beth de Goede
- Anthony P. De Marco
- Peter E. Denno
- William A. Diedrich
- A. Christopher Duran
- Amy W. Estrada
- Jennifer R. Fain
- Eve P. Fichtner
- Paul S. Fleck
- Mellissa E. Gallegos
- Stephanie L. Garrett
- Karen E. Gilyard
- Todd A. Goluba
- Jacqueline D. Hang
- Davina F. Harden
- Suparna Jain
- Jonathan Judge
- Warren S. Kinsler
- Nate J. Kowalski
- Tien P. Le
- Alex A. Lozada
- Kimberly C. Ludwin
- Bryan G. Martin
- Paul Z. McGlocklin
- Stephen M. McLoughlin
- Anna J. Miller
- Jacquelyn Takeda Morenz
- Kristin M. Myers
- Katrina J. Nepacena
- Adam J. Newman
- Anthony P. Niccoli
- Aaron V. O'Donnell
- Sharon J. Ormond
- Gabrielle E. Ortiz
- Beverly A. Ozowara
- Chesley D. Quaide
- Rebeca Quintana
- Elizabeth J. Rho-Ng
- Todd M. Robbins
- Irma Rodríguez Moisa
- Brooke Romero
- Alyssa Ruiz de Esparza
- Lauren Ruvalcaba
- Scott J. Sachs
- Gabriel A. Sandoval
- Peter A. Schaffert
- Constance J. Schwindt
- Justin R. Shinnefield
- Amber M. Solano
- David A. Soldani
- Dustin Stroeve
- Constance M. Taylor
- Mark W. Thompson
- Emaleigh Valdez
- Jonathan S. Vick
- Jabari A. Willis
- Sara C. Young
- Elizabeth Zamora-Mejia
Archives
2024
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
- December 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- January 2018
2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
2015
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
2014
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
2013
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
2012
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012