PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
J.D., by his next friends; MARK
DAVIS; TAMMY DAVIS,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. No. 08-1244
KANAWHA COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge.
(2:06-cv-00167)
Argued: May 14, 2009
Decided: July 9, 2009
Before Sandra Day O’CONNOR, Associate Justice
(Retired), Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by
designation, WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and Joseph F.
ANDERSON, Jr., United States District Judge for the
District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the
opinion, in which Associate Justice O’Connor and Judge
Anderson joined.
2 J.D. v. KANAWHA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
COUNSEL
Vaughn Sizemore, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Cynthia E. Evans, Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellees.
OPINION
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:
Mark and Tammy Davis, the parents of a disabled child,
were awarded attorneys’ fees by the district court under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") after
prevailing on several claims before a hearing officer. The
defendant school board challenges the award. It argues that
attorneys’ fees were improper because the parents rejected a
settlement offer that was more favorable than the legal relief
they ultimately obtained. The school board also argues that
the parents were not a "prevailing party" under the IDEA.
We affirm the award of attorneys’ fees. Because the school
board’s settlement offer explicitly referred to terms from a
confidential mediation in violation of 20 U.S.C.
§ 1415(e)(2)(G), the district court properly refused to consider
the settlement offer as evidence. Further, that court did not
abuse its discretion in approving what was, after all, a much
reduced award for the parents that reflected the parents’ lim-
ited success. To overturn the ruling would only encourage
appeals on matters best left to trial court discretion and collat-
eral to the merits of the case.
I.
J.D. is an autistic child who in 2005 was enrolled in public
school in Kanawha County, West Virginia. His parents, Mark
and Tammy Davis, believed that J.D. was not receiving a free
J.D. v. KANAWHA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 3
appropriate public education ("FAPE") and other services due
him under the IDEA. In March 2005, his parents attended a
mediation session with representatives of the Kanawha
County Schools at which the parties drafted a settlement
agreement. But J.D.’s parents decided not to sign the
agreement—instead, they filed a due process complaint with
the Kanawha County Board of Education ("the Board") on
March 29, 2005, alleging various violations of the IDEA.
On May 13, the Board sent a letter to the parents, stating:
Please accept this letter as the written offer of Kana-
wha County Schools to settle the due process hearing
request filed on behalf of [J.D.], on the terms and
conditions set forth in the settlement agreement
reached but not signed at the mediation session held
on March 11, 2005.
The parents rejected this offer, and several months later, in
September 2005, a hearing officer conducted an administra-
tive hearing that addressed five issues. First, the hearing offi-
cer asked whether J.D.’s March 2005 individual education
plan ("IEP") provided sufficient individual instruction. The
hearing officer ruled for the Board on this issue, holding that
the IEP was appropriate. He also considered the following
four issues:
1. Whether the school erred by implementing a
new IEP in March 2005, after the parents filed
their due process complaint;
2. Whether the school properly conducted the
Multi-Disciplinary Evaluation Team assessment;
3. Whether the school owed J.D. compensatory
speech and language therapy; and
4. Whether J.D. should have received extended
school year services in 2004.
4 J.D. v. KANAWHA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
The hearing officer found for J.D. on all four issues. He
concluded that the school should not have implemented a new
IEP while the parents’ request for a due process hearing was
pending. He also ordered the Board to provide J.D. with a
new occupational therapy evaluation and with compensatory
speech and language therapy, and to hold another IEP team
meeting to determine whether J.D. required compensatory
extended school year services and any other assistance.
The parents appealed the first issue—whether the 2005 IEP
provided sufficient individual instruction—to the district
court, which affirmed the decision for the Board. The parents
also requested $112,292 in attorneys’ fees under the IDEA,
which provides that "the court, in its discretion, may award
reasonable attorneys’ fees . . . to a prevailing party who is the
parent of a child with a disability." 20 U.S.C.
§ 1415(i)(3)(B)(i). The parents argued that attorneys’ fees
were proper because they had prevailed on four of five issues
before the hearing officer.
In response, the Board argued that section 1415(i)(3)(D)(i)
of the IDEA barred the award. That section states:
Attorneys’ fees may not be awarded and related
costs may not be reimbursed in any action or pro-
ceeding under this section for services performed
subsequent to the time of a written offer of settle-
ment to a parent if —
(I) the offer is made within the time prescribed by
Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or,
in the case of an administrative proceeding, at any
time more than 10 days before the proceeding
begins;
(II) the offer is not accepted within 10 days; and
(III) the court or administrative hearing officer finds
that the relief finally obtained by the parents is not
J.D. v. KANAWHA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 5
more favorable to the parents than the offer of settle-
ment.
Specifically, the Board argued that it had made a written offer
of settlement to the parents months before the administrative
hearing; the parents rejected this offer; and the settlement
terms were more favorable to the parents than the relief even-
tually provided by the hearing officer. To support its argu-
ment, the Board provided the district court with a copy of the
letter it sent to the parents on May 13, 2005, and with a copy
of the settlement agreement that was reached but not signed
at mediation.
The district court refused to consider the Board’s settlement
offer as evidence, citing the confidentiality provision of the
IDEA. That provision states that "[d]iscussions that occur dur-
ing the mediation process shall be confidential and may not
be used as evidence in any subsequent due process hearing or
civil proceeding." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2)(G). The court also
noted that the parties had signed a confidentiality agreement
that prohibited them from "revealing to anyone, including a
judge, . . . the content of any discussions which take place
during the mediation process," including "settlement propos-
als made or rejected." Therefore, the court did not look to the
Board’s settlement offer to determine whether the parents had
rejected a more favorable settlement offer before the adminis-
trative hearing, and the Board provided no other evidence to
support its claim.
Finally, the court concluded that the parents were a "pre-
vailing party" because, although they lost on the first issue,
they prevailed and received relief on three of the five claims
they raised.* The court therefore granted their motion for
attorneys’ fees, awarding them $34,072—rather than the
*The district court found that the hearing officer’s decision that the
school should not have issued a new IEP in March 2005 raised only a pro-
cedural issue and provided no remedy to J.D.
6 J.D. v. KANAWHA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
$112,292 they requested—to account for their limited suc-
cess. The Board appealed the award to this court.
The question of whether a party was a "prevailing party"
under the IDEA is a legal question that we review de novo.
We review the amount of fees awarded for abuse of discre-
tion. Smyth v. Rivero, 282 F.3d 268, 274 (4th Cir. 2002).
II.
A.
The Board argues on appeal that the attorneys’ fees award
violated the IDEA because: (1) the Board offered to settle
more than ten days before the administrative hearing; (2) the
parents rejected this offer; and (3) "the relief finally obtained
by the parents [was] not more favorable" than the Board’s
offer. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i). The Board is clearly cor-
rect on the first two points. But we cannot evaluate whether
the settlement offer was more favorable than the hearing offi-
cer’s decision because, by referencing and incorporating the
terms of a confidential mediation into the offer, the Board
precluded the offer’s consideration as evidence.
The IDEA’s confidentiality provision states that
"[d]iscussions that occur during the mediation process . . .
may not be used as evidence in any subsequent due process
hearing or civil proceeding." Id. § 1415(e)(2)(G). The Board’s
settlement offer explicitly referred to the mediation discus-
sions by offering to settle "on the terms and conditions set
forth in the settlement agreement reached but not signed at the
mediation session." By referring to the mediation in the settle-
ment offer, the Board almost guaranteed that the mediation
discussions would become part of a later civil proceeding: the
dispute over attorneys’ fees. And the plain language of the
IDEA prohibits the use of mediation discussions in this way.
See id.
J.D. v. KANAWHA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 7
Nevertheless, the Board argues that the settlement offer did
not violate the confidentiality provision because the "offer to
settle was not part of the mediation, but was made after medi-
ation had concluded." But the timing of the offer is immaterial
under the statutory language. As the district court noted, the
Board cannot "circumvent the confidentiality requirements"
by referring to the mediation in its offer and introducing that
document into a civil proceeding.
The Board also argues that the district court’s interpretation
of the confidentiality provision would prevent parties from
ever offering to settle on terms discussed at meditation. For
example, the Board suggests that if parties discussed settling
for $10,000 at mediation, but did not reach agreement, the
defendant could not offer to settle at a later date for $10,000
without violating the confidentiality provision. But this argu-
ment is unpersuasive: the defendant in the hypothetical could
comply with the statutory provision by offering to settle for
the same amount but not referring to the mediation in its set-
tlement offer. And here, the Board could have offered to settle
with the parents on the same terms discussed at mediation
without referring to the mediation. Nowhere in its briefs or at
oral argument did the Board provide any reason for introduc-
ing the mediation into the settlement offer in the manner that
it did. And although the Board points to a paucity of case law
on this issue, that is likely because other boards of education
have respected the statutory language and not violated the
confidentiality provision in this way.
Finally, we note that Congress intended to encourage medi-
ation under the IDEA. The statute requires state and local
education agencies to establish mediation procedures, to
maintain a list of qualified mediators, and to pay for media-
tion costs. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e). And the IDEA emphasizes
the confidentiality of mediations not only by requiring that all
mediation discussions remain confidential, see id.
§ 1415(e)(2)(G), but also by requiring parties that reach a res-
olution through mediation to "execute a legally binding agree-
8 J.D. v. KANAWHA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
ment" to reiterate that "all discussions that occurred during
the mediation process shall be confidential," id.
§ 1415(e)(2)(F); see also Friendship Edison Pub. Charter
Sch. Chamberlain Campus v. Smith, 561 F. Supp. 2d 74, 81
(D.D.C. 2008) (recognizing that "Congress created a mark-
edly distinct vehicle, the mediation process, for formal settle-
ment discussions").
These provisions let mediations stand free and clear of later
proceedings, and ensure that mediation discussions will not be
chilled by the threat of disclosure at some later date. Enforc-
ing the confidentiality provision is therefore critical to ensur-
ing that parties trust the integrity of the mediation process and
remain willing to engage in it. See, e.g., Ellen E. Deason,
Enforcing Mediated Settlement Agreements: Contract Law
Collides with Confidentiality, 35 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 33, 78
(Nov. 2001) ("A party that participates in mediation under a
court’s confidentiality rules is very likely to feel betrayed by
the court if the mediation is later probed in search of an
alleged agreement."). For these reasons, we affirm the district
court’s refusal to consider the settlement offer in reaching its
decision. Further, because the IDEA prohibits disclosure of
the mediation terms, we do not need to consider the force of
the parties’ contract provision, which also provided that medi-
ation discussions would be confidential.
B.
Next, the Board argues that the district court erred in
awarding attorneys’ fees because the parents were not a "pre-
vailing party" under the IDEA. 20 U.S.C.
§ 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I). The Board maintains that the parents
lost on a significant issue—whether the March 2005 IEP was
appropriate—and prevailed on several minor issues only. Spe-
cifically, the Board argues that the dispute over the level of
individual instruction in the March 2005 IEP was the most
important issue in the proceeding, and that J.D.’s father testi-
fied that the parents filed the due process claim primarily to
J.D. v. KANAWHA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 9
address this issue. Therefore, the Board argues, the parents
did not "substantially prevail" and attorneys’ fees were
improper.
This argument lacks merit. It is true of course that federal
prevailing party fee-shifting statutes are subject to strict stan-
dards. See Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va.
Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 603 & n.4
(2001) (noting that "prevailing party" is a "legal term of art"
to be interpreted consistently across federal fee-shifting stat-
utes). As the Supreme Court noted in Buckhannon, an award
of attorneys’ fees requires a "‘material alteration of the legal
relationship of the parties.’" Id. at 604 (quoting Tex. State
Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782,
792-93 (1989)); see also Combs v. Sch. Bd. of Rockingham
County, 15 F.3d 357, 360 (4th Cir. 1994). This alteration may
be accomplished either through "enforceable judgments on
the merits [or] court-ordered consent decrees." Buckhannon,
532 U.S. at 604.
Therefore, a party need not prevail on every issue or even
the most "central" issue in a proceeding to be considered a
"prevailing party." Tex. State Teachers Ass’n, 489 U.S. at
790-92. The Court rejected a "central issue" test in part
because it would "spawn a second litigation of significant
dimension" as courts attempted to distinguish "‘central’
[from] ‘tangential’ issues in the lawsuit." Id. at 791. These
cases make clear that to merit attorneys’ fees under the IDEA,
a plaintiff does not need to prove that he "substantially pre-
vailed," as the Board suggests. Rather, "obtaining judicially
sanctioned and enforceable final relief on some claims is suf-
ficient." G. ex rel. Ssgt R.G. v. Fort Bragg Dependent Schs.,
324 F.3d 240, 255 (4th Cir. 2003).
Applying these principles to this case, it is clear that the
parents were a "prevailing party." The hearing officer ordered
the Board to provide additional evaluations to J.D., to hold
another IEP meeting using an independent facilitator, and,
10 J.D. v. KANAWHA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
most importantly, to provide over thirteen hours of speech and
language therapy. This case is therefore similar to Fort Bragg
Dependent Schools, where we reviewed a district court deci-
sion rejecting the plaintiff’s claim for more individual instruc-
tion but awarding him education reimbursement expenses of
over $11,000. Id. at 254-55. We held that, despite losing on
a central claim, the plaintiff was a "prevailing party" under
the IDEA because he had received an "enforceable legal judg-
ment." Id. at 255. We reach the same conclusion here: receiv-
ing legal relief from the hearing officer brought the parents
across the statutory "threshold to a fee award of some kind."
Tex. State Teachers Ass’n, 489 U.S. at 792.
Once this threshold was crossed, the district court had dis-
cretion to determine the amount of the award. See id. at 789-
90; Fort Bragg Dependent Schs., 324 F.3d at 255 n.20. In
determining a reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees, courts
should look not only to customary hourly rates but also to "re-
sults obtained," especially where a plaintiff has "succeeded on
only some of his claims for relief." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461
U.S. 424, 434 (1983) (internal quotation omitted); see also
Trimper v. City of Norfolk, 58 F.3d 68 (4th Cir. 1995). The
district court engaged in exactly this inquiry. It applied the
customary rate for attorneys in the community, which it found
to be $250 per hour. The court then adjusted the award down-
ward to account for the parents’ limited success. It noted that
the parents had prevailed on several of the claims and "re-
ceived some of the relief sought," but had not prevailed on
their most significant claim contesting the adequacy of the
March 2005 IEP. The court therefore awarded the parents
$34,072 of the $112,292 they requested.
In Hensley, the Supreme Court noted that "[t]here is no pre-
cise rule or formula" for determining the amount of attorneys’
fees, and that district courts "necessarily [have] discretion" in
such matters. 461 U.S. at 436-37. Here, the district court did
not grant most of the amount requested by the parents, but
took care to examine the limited relief they did receive.
J.D. v. KANAWHA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 11
Therefore, we find no basis for concluding that the award
amounted to an abuse of discretion.
III.
In sum, the Board’s assignments of error are without merit.
We find no error of law and no abuse of discretion in the dis-
trict court’s resolution of the matter. The judgment is accord-
ingly
AFFIRMED.