Opinion ID: 186678
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jamel Whatley & the District of Columbia Public Schools

Text: 14 In 1995, Esther Williams became increasingly concerned about her grandson Jamel's lack of progress at school. He was in the process of repeating first grade, although the D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) had not undertaken a formal evaluation of his academic development. On February 15, 1996, Williams filed a Form 6, which triggers DCPS's evaluation and possible placement of students that may have special academic needs. DCPS thereafter began an assessment of Jamel that lasted approximately two years. As a result of this delay, on February 18, 1998, Williams requested that the DCPS Student Hearing Office conduct a due process hearing in accordance with IDEA. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f). 15 DCPS failed to act on Williams' hearing request. On December 4, 1998, Williams filed an action on Jamel's behalf in the District Court. She sought an order directing a due process hearing on DCPS's alleged failure to provide special education services to Jamel. By this time, Jamel was 10 years old and in the process of repeating third grade. 16 Not long after Williams filed suit, DCPS completed its original assessment and developed an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for Jamel. The IEP identified Jamel as both learning disabled and speech/language impaired. DCPS proposed that Jamel enter the Prospect-Goding Learning Center (Prospect). He enrolled at Prospect in March 1999, where he was placed in a full-time special education class and received counseling and speech/language therapy. 17 Jamel's due process hearing was finally held on October 27, 1999. On November 2, 1999, the hearing officer concluded that DCPS demonstrated that the program at Prospect implemented Jamel's IEP and conformed with the requirements of IDEA. However, she also found that DCPS's delay in determining eligibility and initiating services [wa]s extensive, and that the impact [of the delay on Jamel wa]s significant, particularly [since he] entered special education at the highest intensity level short of residential placement. Hearing Officer's Determination (Oct. 27, 1999) at 6, Joint Appendix (J.A.) 69. To remedy the damage caused by the District, the hearing officer ruled that Jamel was entitled to compensatory relief. This relief included a reading diagnostic evaluation, tutoring in reading, language arts, and math, and new evaluations after the end of the 1999-2000 school year and prior to the 2001-02 school year. 18 Based on their success in the administrative proceeding, appellants sought from the District attorneys' fees and costs. IDEA authorizes federal district courts to award such fees and costs to a prevailing party in any action or proceeding brought under the Act. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). The District complied with appellants' fee request, paying all of their expenses (which were not subject to the cap) and as much of the fees as were permitted by § 130. 19 Despite the apparent resolution of appellants' complaints, Williams believed that DCPS was not fully complying with the hearing officer's determination and that Jamel was making little academic progress at Prospect. Thus, on April 4, 2001, she requested a second due process hearing. This action was rendered moot, however, as the parties reached a settlement on May 8, 2001. DCPS agreed, inter alia, to pay for the independent testing already completed, send out new placement packets on Jamel's behalf, and set up an expedited hearing process should the terms of the agreement be violated. The District again paid all expenses associated with appellants' administrative action and as much of the attorneys' fees as permitted under the applicable appropriations cap.