Weissburg v. Lancaster School District (2010)

By Charles Sam

Overview

Weissburg v. Lancaster School District (2010) is a significant case under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), focusing on the classification of a student's disability and the entitlement to attorney's fees. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether a change in a student's disability classification, without a finding of denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), could render the parents as prevailing parties eligible for attorney's fees. (FindLaw, Slote, Links & Boreman, PC)

Summary

Edward Weissburg, a student with developmental disabilities, was initially classified by the Lancaster School District under the category of "mental retardation" (now referred to as intellectual disability). His parents contended that this classification was inappropriate and that Edward should also be recognized under the "autism" category to ensure he received services tailored to his specific needs. (Slote, Links & Boreman, PC)

Both the Weissburg's and the school district requested due process hearings before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to resolve the dispute. The OAH concluded that while the district's assessment was appropriate, Edward should be classified under both "mental retardation" and "autism." Despite this, the OAH determined that Edward had received a FAPE, as his educational placement addressed his needs. (Lozano Smith, Studicata)

Subsequently, the Weissburgs sought to recover attorney's fees, arguing that the change in classification materially altered Edward's legal rights, such as access to teachers certified in autism education. The district court denied this request, stating that since there was no denial of FAPE, the parents were not prevailing parties under IDEA (FindLaw, Slote, Links & Boreman, PC).

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the change in Edward's disability classification did materially alter the legal relationship between the parties, making the Weissburgs, prevailing parties eligible for at eligible for attorney's fees. The court emphasized that under IDEA, a party prevails when they achieve a material alteration in the legal relationship, even without a finding of FAPE (Circuit Court of Appeals, Slote, Links & Boreman, PC).

Additionally, the court addressed the issue of representation. Edward's grandmother, a licensed attorney, represented him during the proceedings. The district court had denied attorney's fees on the basis that she was a family member. The Ninth Circuit clarified that while parents representing their own children pro se are not entitled to attorney fees, a relative who is a licensed attorney and provides legal representation is eligible for such fees under IDEA (Slote, Links & Boreman, PC).

Impact

Weissburg v. Lancaster School District (2010) clarified and expanded the legal definition of a “prevailing party” under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), even in cases where there is no explicit denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The Ninth Circuit’s ruling established that a material alteration in the legal relationship, such as a change in a student’s disability classification, is sufficient to entitle parents to attorney fees.

This decision strengthened parental rights in special education disputes by recognizing that important procedural and categorical changes, such as accurate disability identification, can carry significant legal and educational consequences. The ruling also clarified the issue of legal representation within families by confirming that licensed attorneys who are family members are eligible to receive attorney’s fees under IDEA, differentiating them from pro se parent litigants who are not.

The case continues to be cited in IDEA litigation where the question of what constitutes a “prevailing party” arises, especially in situations involving procedural or categorical changes rather than direct FAPE violations. It reinforced the importance of accurate disability classification as not just an administrative label but as a factor that directly influences access to appropriate services, specialists, and accommodations for students with disabilities.

Court Documents

Weissburg v. Lancaster School District, 591 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2010)

Citations

Weissburg v. Lancaster School District, 591 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2010).

Parents Entitled to Attorneys' Fees for Successfully Challenging District's Classification of Student's Disability, Kronick, https://kmtg.com/news/legal-alerts/parents-entitled-to-attorneys-fees-for-successfully-challenging-districts-classification-of-students-disability/

FAPE Litigation Under IDEA Statute: Who is a prevailing party?" Slote & Links, https://slotelaw.com/article/fape-litigation-under-idea-statute-who-prevailing-party