## Facts

- Edward Weissburg was a child with developmental disabilities and was eligible for special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
- Edward attended school in the Lancaster School District (Lancaster).
- After an assessment, Lancaster classified Edward’s disability as mental retardation.
- Joseph and Adria Weissburg (the Weissburgs), Edward’s parents, repeatedly asked Lancaster to change Edward’s disability classification to autistic because their psychologist concluded Edward was autistic but not mentally retarded.
- Lancaster declined to change the classification.
- Edward’s classroom teacher was qualified to teach children whose primary disabilities included both mental retardation and autism.
- The Weissburgs filed an IDEA due-process complaint requesting a private assessment of Edward’s disability classification at public expense.
- Following the due-process hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded Edward should have been eligible for special education under both mental-retardation and autism classifications.
- Lancaster then changed Edward’s disability classification to include two primary disabilities: mental retardation and autism.
- The Weissburgs filed suit in federal district court seeking attorneys’ fees under the IDEA’s fee-shifting provision.
- The district court denied fees, ruling the Weissburgs were not “prevailing parties” because the classification change did not materially change the legal relationship between Edward and Lancaster.
- The Weissburgs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether parents qualify as “prevailing parties” entitled to attorneys’ fees under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B) when an ALJ orders a school district to change a child’s IDEA eligibility classification to add autism.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees and remanded.
- The court held the Weissburgs were prevailing parties because the ALJ’s order required Lancaster to change Edward’s official eligibility classification and thus materially changed the parties’ legal relationship.
- The court directed the district court on remand to determine a reasonable fee award in light of the results obtained.

## Legal Principles

- The IDEA allows a court, in its discretion, to award reasonable attorneys’ fees to a parent who is a “prevailing party.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B).
- A party is a prevailing party if it obtains relief that is (1) judicially sanctioned (or comparable administrative relief) and (2) materially changes the legal relationship between the parties by requiring the defendant to do something it otherwise would not have done.
- An enforceable administrative order in an IDEA due-process proceeding can supply the necessary judicial (or administrative) imprimatur for prevailing-party status.
- Relief need not include a change in placement or a finding of denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to be material; an ordered correction to eligibility classification can be significant because IDEA eligibility status is a legally operative designation reflected in a child’s education records and tied to IDEA procedures.
- Even when a party prevails, the amount of fees may be reduced to reflect limited success and to exclude time not reasonably related to the successful claim.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the Weissburgs were prevailing parties under the IDEA because the ALJ’s order requiring Lancaster to revise Edward’s eligibility classification to include autism was enforceable relief that changed the parties’ legal relationship, and it remanded for the district court to calculate a reasonable attorneys’ fee award based on the degree of success achieved.


Weissburg v. Lancaster School District, 591 F.3d 1255 (2010)