Johnson v. Flagler Cnty. Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 12 May 2022
• Docket Number: 3:21-cv-995-MMH-PDB
• Parties: Reba Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Flagler County School District, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

Reba Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Flagler County School District, Defendant.

No. 3:21-cv-995-MMH-PDB

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division

May 12, 2022

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Patricia D. Barksdale United States Magistrate Judge

Reba Johnson sued Flagler County School District to enforce an agreement reached through mediation conducted under § 615 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as codified and amended at 20 U.S.C. § 1415 and referred to here as § 1415. See Docs. 1 (complaint), 13 (agreement). This Court entered a consent decree, reserving jurisdiction to enforce the decree's terms. Doc. 26.

Now proceeding under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and Local Rule 7.01 and relying on the IDEA, Ms. Johnson requests a determination she is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and expenses incurred in prosecuting this lawsuit. Doc. 29. The school district opposes the motion. Doc. 31. The threshold issue of whether the IDEA authorizes a fee award to the prevailing party in a lawsuit to enforce an agreement reached through IDEA mediation appears to be an issue of first impression in this circuit.

I. Background

According to Congress, these are the purposes of the IDEA:

(1) (A) to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living;

(B) to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected; and

(C) to assist States, localities, educational service agencies, and Federal agencies to provide for the education of all children with disabilities;

(2) to assist States in the implementation of a statewide comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary, interagency system of early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families;

(3) to ensure that educators and parents have the necessary tools to improve educational results for children with disabilities by supporting system improvement activities coordinated research and personnel preparation; coordinated technical assistance, dissemination, and support; and technology development and media services; and

(4) to assess, and ensure the effectiveness of, efforts to educate children with disabilities.

20 U.S.C. § 1400(d).

To achieve these purposes, the IDEA offers states federal funds in exchange for complying with certain statutory conditions. Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S.Ct. 988, 993 (2017). One condition is to provide a “free appropriate public education,” known as a “FAPE,” to all “children with disabilities residing in the State between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive, including children with disabilities who have been suspended or expelled from school.” § 1412(a)(1)(A).

A FAPE includes “special education and related services.” § 1401(9). A state receiving funding must provide a disabled child special education and related services “in conformity with the individual education program,” known as an “IEP.” § 1401(9)(D). An IEP is “a written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in accordance” with statutory criteria. § 1401(14). An IEP is prepared by an “IEP Team,” which includes teachers, representatives of the local educational agency, and parents. § 1414(d)(1)(B). Individualized for each child's unique needs, the IEP is the “centerpiece” of the IDEA's “education delivery system for disabled children.” Endrew, 137 S.Ct. at 994 (internal quotation marks and quoted authority omitted).

When disagreement about an IEP arises, a parent “may turn to dispute resolution procedures” in § 1415. Id. Under that part of the IDEA, a parent may present a complaint about “any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a [FAPE] to such child.” § 1415(b)(6)(A). A complaint generally leads to a “preliminary meeting” of the parties. § 1415(f)(1)(B)(i). Instead of, or in addition to, the preliminary meeting, the parties may elect to participate in mediation. § 1415(e). If the parties settle at the meeting or mediation, they must sign a written agreement. § 1415(e)(2)(F), (f)(1)(B)(iii). If the parties fail to settle, they proceed to a “due process hearing” before a local or state educational agency,^[1] § 1415(f)(1)(A), with a right to appeal to a state educational agency if the due process hearing is before a local educational agency, § 1415(g)(1). At the end of the administrative process, the losing party can sue in federal court. § 1415(i)(2)(A).

The Supreme Court has summarized these IDEA procedures:

Because parents and school representatives sometimes cannot agree on ... issues, the IDEA establishes formal procedures for resolving disputes. To begin, a dissatisfied parent may file a complaint as to any matter concerning the provision of a FAPE with the local or state educational agency (as state law provides). See § 1415(b)(6). That pleading generally triggers a “[p]reliminary meeting” involving the contending parties, § 1415(f)(1)(B)(i); at their option, the parties may instead (or also) pursue a full-fledged mediation process, see § 1415(e). Assuming their impasse continues, the matter proceeds to a “due process hearing” before an impartial hearing officer. § 1415(f)(1)(A); see § 1415(f)(3)(A)(i). Any decision of the officer granting substantive relief must be “based on a determination of whether the child received a [FAPE].” § 1415(f)(3)(E)(i). If the hearing is initially conducted at the local level, the ruling is appealable to the state agency. See § 1415(g). Finally, a parent unhappy with the outcome of the administrative process may seek judicial review by filing a civil action in state or federal court. See § 1415(i)(2)(A).

Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S.Ct. 743, 749 (2017) (alterations in original).

According to allegations in the complaint filed in this lawsuit, Ms. Johnson, now 18 or older, has post-traumatic stress disorder, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 11, 25. She moved to a group home in the school district in November 2020. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 26-28.

The parties agree that, following the IDEA procedures in § 1415, Ms. Johnson filed a due process complaint, the parties participated in mediation, and the mediation resulted in a written agreement signed by Ms. Johnson and a school district representative on September 21, 2021. See Docs. 1-2 (Ms. Johnson's due process complaint), 1-3 (the agreement).

In the agreement, the school district denied liability. Doc. 1-3 at 2. The school district explained it “enters into this agreement as a matter of compromise to avoid the expense and risk of litigation and no other intention should be inferred.” Doc. 1-3 at 2. The parties agreed the school district will provide these services to Ms. Johnson:

1. [Ms.] Johnson will be provided small group direct instruction in all academic areas by certified general education and ESE certified teachers at Flagler Palm Coast High School (FPC). The instruction will take place in a self[]-contained classroom to assist in dealing with certain social issues, behavioral concerns, and specific academic struggles (i.e. in math, reading, science) this will begin the week of September 27^th, 2021. Lauren Green will be consulted in the development of the small group direct instruction. This will be an interim placement for 90 days but not to exceed 9 weeks for the purpose of diagnostics and the development of a permanent education program.

[2.] During the 90 days the district will retain independent consultants not affiliated with Flagler County School District (FCSD), such as University of South Florida's Project 10. These Independent consultants will work collaboratively with Disability Rights Florida's (DRF) independent consultants and the FCSD to assess the interim placement identify and develop an appropriate permanent educational program. The consultants will meet with the IEP team to discuss those recommendations[.]

3. The [school district] agrees to provide an [Independent Educational Evaluation] for a psycho-educational and speech Language evaluations. [Ms. Johnson] and her representatives wish to use Dr. Kahina Louis to complete the psycho-educational evaluation. DRF will select an [Independent Educational Evaluation] provider to conduct the Speech and Language evaluation and inform FCSD of the provider as soon as practicable.

4. The [school] district will start a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) of [Ms.] Johnson within two weeks after she has been in attendance and can be evaluated within the FPC classroom setting.

5. Upon completion of the FBA, an IEP meeting will be convened immediately, no later than October 28, 2021, to review the FBA and develop a positive behavioral intervention plan (PBIP).

6. An interim IEP meeting will be scheduled during the week of September 27^th, 2021 to change students' placement, assigned school, and document the additional services.

7. [Ms.] Johnson will be provided Transportation to and from school with a Special Education Bus beginning the week of September 27^th, 2021 that includes a bus aide.

8. The parties agree that FCSD shall provide compensatory education hours. The parties will convene by January l, 2022, to determine the number of hours and services to be provided.

9. FCSD will conduct a transition assessment within the first two weeks of attending FPC. The types of transition services to [] be provided to [Ms. Johnson] will be addressed at the IEP meeting being convened to discuss the

...