J.N. v. Government of District of Columbia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
______________________________
)
J.N., et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 07-665 (RWR)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
______________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Kea Norris and her minor son, J.N., brought this action
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”),
20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1487 (2000), challenging a hearing officer’s
dismissal of her due process complaint that alleged that the
District of Columbia Public Schools (“DCPS”) denied J.N. a free,
appropriate public education (“FAPE”) by failing to comply timely
with earlier directives in a hearing officer’s determination
(“HOD”), failing to allow Norris to help develop J.N.’s
individualized education program (“IEP”), and failing to provide
J.N. with an appropriate educational placement. The parties have
cross-moved for summary judgment. Although DCPS did not comply
timely with the HOD, Norris has failed to show error in the
hearing officer’s determination that the delay was not harmful.
However, DCPS has shown no evidence of any reasonable diligence
in responding to or accommodating Norris’ requests to reschedule
the meeting to develop J.N.’s IEP so that she could participate,
-2-
a procedural failing that renders infirm the hearing officer’s
finding that J.N.’s school placement was appropriate. Thus, each
motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
When this complaint was filed, J.N. was a twelve-year-old
student enrolled at a public school, Aiton Elementary (“Aiton”),
and classified as learning disabled and eligible for special
education and related services. (Defs.’ Stmt. of Material Facts
(“Defs.’ Stmt.”) ¶¶ 1-3.) In January 2006, an IEP was developed
requiring that J.N. receive twelve and one-half hours of
specialized instruction, one hour of speech language services,
and 30 minutes of psychological services each week. (Id. ¶ 7.)
In March 2006, at Norris’ request, a hearing officer directed
DCPS to conduct a speech and language evaluation, an occupational
therapy evaluation and a clinical psychological evaluation within
10 days of the order; perform a Functional Behavioral Assessment
and a Behavior Intervention Plan within 15 days of the order;
complete an Assistive Technology evaluation withing 15 days of
the order; and convene a multi-disciplinary team (“MDT”)/IEP
meeting no later than 15 days after the receipt of the last
evaluation. (See A.R., Ex. 7. at 0204.)
Months later, on September 8, 2006 Norris filed an
administrative due process complaint against DCPS arguing, in
part, that DCPS had failed to complete the required evaluations,
-3-
failed to convene an MDT/IEP meeting, and failed to provide the
necessary compensatory education. (A.R., Ex. 10 at 0328-32.)
DCPS eventually completed all of the evaluations (Def.’s Stmt.
¶ 5), although J.N. appears to have received all of the ordered
services in the interim. (Defs.’ Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of
Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. and in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J.
(“Defs.’ Mem.”) at 13.) On September 21, 2006, DCPS conducted
the required MDT/IEP meeting without Norris after notice to her
(Defs.’ Stmt. ¶¶ 10, 13) and unanswered requests by her to DCPS
to reschedule it. (See A.R., Ex. 6 at 0193-94.) At the meeting,
DCPS developed another IEP, calling for the same amount of
specialized instruction and services as those called for in the
previous IEP. (Defs.’ Stmt. ¶ 7.)
Two months later, a hearing officer held a hearing on
Norris’ due process complaint. The three DCPS professionals who
had been providing J.N. with special education instruction,
speech and communication services, and psycho-social counseling
services under the IEP over the previous year testified. All
said J.N. had made progress at Aiton since the previous year.
(Defs.’ Stmt. ¶¶ 18, 23-36.) On January 11, 2007, the hearing
officer dismissed the plaintiffs’ administrative complaint after
finding that DCPS had complied -- although untimely -- with the
March 2006 HOD, that the delay did not harm J.N., that DCPS’
efforts to obtain Norris’ participation in the IEP meeting were
-4-
diligent and reasonable and revealed no procedural flaw, and that
J.N.’s educational placement at Aiton was appropriate. (A.R.,
Ex. 2 at 0007.) Norris brought this action, challenging the
hearing officer’s dismissal.
DISCUSSION
The parties have cross-moved for summary judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). Rule 56(c) provides for
entry of summary judgment if the pleadings, depositions, answers
to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, “show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Moore v.
Hartman, 571 F.3d 62, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “The plain language
of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after
adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who
fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of
an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that
party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
IDEA “ensure[s] 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.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A).
-5-
It “allows parents to file administrative complaints and request
due process hearings ‘with respect to any matter relating to the
identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the
child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to
such child.’” Wright v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No.
05-0990 (RWR), 2007 WL 1141582, at *2 (D.D.C. April 17, 2007)
(quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)(A)). A reviewing court is to
“review the administrative record, hear additional evidence if so
requested by the parties, and, based on the preponderance of the
evidence, . . . grant such relief as the court determines is
appropriate.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The
administrative officer’s findings must be given due weight, but
less deference is called for than would normally be accorded an
administrative decision. See Kerkam v. McKenzie, 862 F.2d 884,
887 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “[A] party challenging the administrative
determination must at least take on the burden of persuading the
court that the hearing officer was wrong, and . . . a court
upsetting the officer’s decision must at least explain its basis
for doing so.” Id. A court’s primary consideration is
compliance with the procedural requirements of IDEA, and a court
should not substitute its own judgment for that of school
agencies regarding what is in the best educational interests of a
student. Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v.
Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982).
-6-
I. DELAYED COMPLIANCE WITH HOD
“[P]rocedural violations of IDEA do not, in themselves,
inexorably lead a court to find a child was denied FAPE.”
Schoenbach v. District of Columbia, 309 F. Supp. 2d 71, 78
(D.D.C. 2004). “[A]n IDEA claim is viable only if those
procedural violations affected the student’s substantive rights.”
Lesesne ex rel. B.F. v. District of Columbia, 447 F.3d 828, 834
(D.C. Cir. 2006) (emphasis in original); see also C.M. v. Bd. of
Educ. of Union County Reg’l High Sch. Dist., 128 Fed. Appx. 876,
881 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“[O]nly those procedural
violations of the IDEA which result in loss of educational
opportunity or seriously deprive parents of their participation
rights are actionable.”); see, e.g., Kruvant v. District of
Columbia, 99 Fed. Appx. 232, 233 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (denying
parents relief because “although DCPS admits that it failed to
satisfy its responsibility to assess [the student] for IDEA
eligibility within 120 days of her parents’ request, the
[parents] have not shown that any harm resulted from that
error”). “A delay does not affect substantive rights if the
student’s education would not have been different had there been
no delay.” D.R. ex rel. Robinson v. Gov’t of D.C., 637 F. Supp.
2d 11, 18-19 (D.D.C. 2009) (finding that the defendant’s delay
affected the student’s substantive rights because the student’s
most recent IEP differed from the one previously issued).
-7-
Norris argues, in part, that the hearing officer erred by
not finding that DCPS’ failure to comply timely with the March
2006 HOD caused J.N. irreparable harm. Norris, however, has
failed to show that the hearing officer’s conclusion was wrong.
Although explanation for that conclusion was spare, the record
evidence reflected a basis for the conclusion. While the ordered
evaluations were delayed, J.N. received in the interim the
services and instruction that the IEP completed in January 2006
required. The fact that the IEP completed in September 2006
(A.R., Ex. 9 at 0303) called for the same amount of specialized
instruction and services as the one completed in January 2006
(Id., Ex. 7 at 0229) was some evidence of lack of harm. See,
e.g., D.R. ex rel. Robinson, 637 F. Supp. 2d at 18. The
testimony by J.N.’s teacher and counselors that he had made
progress under the IEP supported the hearing officer’s
conclusion. Norris has not shown that harm resulted from the
delayed evaluations and IEP meeting, and the hearing officer’s
determination that DCPS’ delay did not result in educational harm
to J.N. will be upheld.
II. MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION
The IDEA’s procedural safeguards help ensure that parents
are able to participate fully in decisions affecting their
child’s education. See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 183 n.6; see also
Holland v. District of Columbia, 71 F.3d 417, 421 (D.C. Cir.
-8-
1995). The IDEA “guarantees parents of disabled children the
opportunity to participate in the evaluation and placement
process.” LeSesne ex rel. B.F. v. District of Columbia, Civil
Action No. 04-0620 (CKK), 2005 WL 3276205, at *2 (D.D.C. July 26,
2005); see also 20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(f), 1415(b)(1). While “not
every technical violation of the procedural prerequisites of an
IEP will invalidate its legitimacy . . ., procedural inadequacies
that . . . seriously infringe upon the parents’ opportunity to
participate in the IEP formulation process . . . clearly result
in the denial of a FAPE.” A.I. ex rel. Iapalucci v. District of
Columbia, 402 F. Supp. 2d 152, 164 (D.D.C. 2005) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
The applicable regulations further emphasize the importance
of parental participation in IEP meetings:
Each public agency must take steps to ensure that one
or both of the parents of a child with a disability are
present at each IEP meeting or are afforded the
opportunity to participate, including (1) [n]otifying
parents of the meeting early enough to ensure that they
will have an opportunity to attend; and (2)
[s]cheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed upon time
and place.
34 C.F.R. § 300.322(a). However, “[a] meeting may be conducted
without a parent in attendance if the public agency is unable to
convince the parents that they should attend” and the agency
makes detailed records of the attempts to contact the parent.
See Id.-9-
Norris argues that she was not given an opportunity to
participate in the September 2006 IEP meeting. (Pls.’ Mem. of P.
& A. in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pls.’ Mem.”) at 9-12.)
The record demonstrates that DCPS faxed to Norris'
representatives on August 30, 2006 a notice that the MDT/IEP
meeting was being scheduled. The notice invited Norris to attend
and to respond confirming one of three suggested
meeting dates: September 7, 2006, which was eight days away;
September 14, 2006; and September 21, 2006. Having received no
response, DCPS faxed on September 12, 2006 a second notice and
invitation offering as suggested meeting dates September 14,
2006, which was two days away, and September 21, 2006. (See A.R.,
Ex. 8 at 0279; Ex. 9 at 0283, 0286, 0288.) Having still
received no response, DCPS faxed on September 18, 2006 a
third notice and invitation, informing Norris that the meeting
would be held on September 21, 2006, which was three days away.
(See A.R., Ex. 9 at 0289; Ex. 6 at 0193 (letter acknowledging
receipt).) Each notice asked the invitee to call Angela Allen at
the Aiton phone number typed on the notice to arrange a mutual
time if a listed time was inconvenient. Although each
notice said that “[a]fter the third attempt to contact the
parent, the meeting will be held without further notice[,]” no
notice warned that the rescheduling option was unavailable after
a third notice was issued. (See A.R., Ex. 9 at 0286, 0288-89.)
-10-
Norris presented evidence of a timely response and the
hearing officer failed to address it. (A.R., Ex. 2 at 0003
(January 11, 2007 HOD identifying plaintiffs' record exhibit “JN-
28,” now marked as A.R., Ex. 6 at 0193 (see A.R., Ex. 2 at 0010-
11 (referring to “JN-28”))).) While Norris’ representative Annie
Pressley responded only after the third notice was
sent, she did call Angela Allen on each of the next three days --
September 19, 20, and 21, 2006 -- and leave messages that the
September 21 date was not a good date. Pressley also spoke with
the social worker on the MDT team and proposed two alternative
meeting dates and times in early October. The social worker
vowed to notify Allen that Norris and her representative were
not available on September 21. DCPS did not respond to Pressley
before holding the September 21 meeting (see A.R., Ex. 6 at 0190,
0193), and has presented no evidence to rebut Norris' evidence of
her timely response to the third DCPS notice.
While the D.C. Circuit does not appear to have addressed
whether a failure to accommodate a parent’s reasonable request to
reschedule an IEP meeting constitutes a denial of a FAPE, the
Ninth Circuit has found that refusing to reschedule an IEP
meeting at the parents’ request represents a significant
procedural defect. In Shapiro ex rel. Shapiro v. Paradise Valley
Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69, 317 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2003), the
court stated that the school district violated IDEA by failing to
-11-
coordinate with a student’s parents to schedule the IEP, and by
simply notifying parents of the meeting and refusing to honor the
parents’ timely rescheduling requests. Id. at 1079 (overruled on
other grounds); cf. Michael J. v. Derry Twp. Sch. Dist., No.
103CV1104, 2006 WL 148882, at *17 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 19, 2006)
(finding no procedural violation where the district scheduled and
held without the parents an IEP meeting on a date reached by
mutual agreement with the parents, encouraged the parents to
participate, and noted that the meeting would go forward in any
event if the parents declined to participate).
Even though DCPS attempted to coordinate a meeting with
Norris as early as August 30, 2006 (A.R., Ex. 9 at 0286), the
parties never agreed mutually on the September 21 meeting date.
Also, there is no evidence that Norris could not be convinced to
attend the meeting; rather, Norris made timely, diligent and
reasonable efforts to reschedule the September 21 meeting, and
there is no evidence that DCPS did anything to respond to or
accommodate Norris’ timely and reasonable requests to reschedule.
DCPS failed to fulfill its duty to schedule a mutually agreed
upon time and place for the IEP meeting. Thus, Norris has
provided sufficient evidence to support her claim that the
hearing officer’s determination that DCPS’ efforts were diligent
and reasonable was wrong.
-12-
III. APPROPRIATE PLACEMENT
“IDEA was intended to provide a basic floor of opportunity
and an individualized plan designed to provide educational
benefit to the handicapped child.” Schoenbach, 309 F. Supp. 2d
at 80 (internal quotation marks omitted). The question of
whether a public school placement is appropriate rests on “(1)
whether DCPS has complied with IDEA’s administrative procedures
and (2) whether or not the IEP . . . was reasonably calculated to
provide some educational benefit to [the student.]” Id. at 78.
“A school district must comply with the procedural requirements
and safeguards listed in 20 U.S.C. § 1415.” Id.“An IEP must be ‘reasonably calculated’ to confer
educational benefits on the child, . . . but it need not
‘maximize the potential of each handicapped child commensurate
with the opportunity presented non-handicapped children.’”
Anderson v. District of Columbia, 606 F. Supp. 2d 86, 92 (D.D.C.
2009) (quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 200, 207) (internal citations
omitted). The “sufficiency of the educational benefits offered
[is not] measured by any single, narrow standard.” Reusch v.
Fountain, 872 F. Supp. 1421, 1425 (D. Md. 1994). “[A]cademic
progress is strong, though not [dispositive], evidence that an
IEP provides educational benefit.” Schoenbach, 309 F. Supp. 2d
at 80-81 (considering the student’s academic progress, as well as
her social-emotional, organizational, interpersonal social,
-13-
coping, and attending skills). “[C]ourts must ‘afford some
deference to the expertise of the . . . school officials
responsible for the child’s education.’” Anderson, 606 F. Supp.
2d at 92 (quoting Lyons by Alexander v. Smith, 829 F. Supp. 414,
418 (D.D.C. 1993)). Moreover, “a District Court must accept the
state agency’s credibility determinations unless the non-
testimonial, extrinsic evidence in the record would justify a
contrary conclusion.” Shore Reg’l High Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. P.S.
ex rel. P.S., 381 F.3d 194, 199 (3d Cir. 2004) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Norris argues that Aiton is an inappropriate placement for
J.N., in part, because DCPS completed the IEP without her
involvement. (Pls.’ Mem. at 14.) Norris also argues that the
IEP is not reasonably calculated to provide J.N. some educational
benefit because certain educational evaluations reveal that J.N.
has regressed in all subject areas. (Pls.’ Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot.
for Summ. J. and Reply to Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J.
(“Pls.’ Opp’n”) at 8-9.)
Norris’ substantive argument does not hold sway. Norris
cited two DCPS pyscho-educational evaluations showing that J.N.’s
scores had declined (A.R., Ex. 4 at 0093-97; Ex. 6 at 0164-75),
and Norris’ own hearing testimony that J.N. had been at Aiton for
over three years and she had seen no improvement in him. (Pls.’
Mem. at 13.) The only other testimony Norris offered at the
-14-
hearing was that of an administrator at High Road Academy (“High
Road”), a full-time, special education private school, who
testified that J.N. had been accepted at High Road and that High
Road is an appropriate placement for J.N. (A.R., Ex. 2 at 0005
¶¶ 6-7.)
The defendants, meanwhile, concede that the evaluations
offered by Norris reveal that he scored lower in the academic
areas tested (Def.’s Mem. at 11), but they argue that the
evaluations are not conclusive evidence that J.N. is not
receiving some educational benefit. The defendants also argue
that the plaintiff has failed to dispute the testimony offered by
“three DCPS witnesses with personal knowledge of J.N. who
testified that J.N. is making progress and that Aiton can
implement his IEP.” (Id.; see also A.R., Ex. 2 at 0005-6 ¶¶ 8-
13.) Furthermore, the defendants cite to the DCPS professionals’
testimony that J.N. has become more tolerant to change and more
amendable to challenging himself (Defs.’ Mem. at 9; A.R., Ex. 12
Tr. 1:11-13), and has progressed in the areas of speech,
communication, math and reading. (A.R., Ex. 2 at 0006 ¶¶ 12,
14.) The hearing officer found this testimony persuasive,
stating that “all of DCPS’ witnesses credibly testified that the
student[’s] IEP was being implemented, the student had made
progress with his communication problems and the student was
receiving some academic benefit.” (A.R., Ex. 2 at 0007.)
-15-
Although the evaluation evidence provided by Norris can tend
to support her argument that Aiton is an inappropriate placement,
it is not conclusive. Norris has not presented a sufficient
basis for this court to discredit the hearing officer’s
credibility determinations or to substitute her judgment for that
of the hearing officer in weighing it against the evidence
regarding J.N.’s best educational interests provided by the
school officials responsible for J.N.’s education.
Norris’ procedural argument, however, has merit. While not
every procedural violation of the IDEA is fatal to an IEP’s
legitimacy, DCPS’s failure to meet its obligation to coordinate
with Norris to schedule J.N.’s IEP meeting eliminated her ability
to participate in the formulation process. See, e.g., A.I. ex
rel. Iapalucci, 402 F. Supp. 2d at 164 (noting that procedural
violations that seriously infringe upon the parents’ opportunity
to participate in the IEP formulation process clearly result in a
denial of a FAPE); Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark County
Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877, 892 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Procedural
violations that interfere with parental participation in the IEP
formulation process undermine the very essence of the IDEA. An
IEP which addresses the unique needs of the child cannot be
developed if those people who are most familiar with the child’s
needs are not involved or fully informed.”). Furthermore,
“Congress placed every bit as much emphasis upon compliance with
-16-
procedures giving parents . . . a large measure of participation
at every stage of the administrative process . . . as it did upon
the measurement of the resulting IEP against a substantive
standard.” Rowley, 458 U.S. at 205-06. By failing to respond to
Norris’ request to reschedule and formulating the September IEP
without Norris’ attendance at the IEP meeting or input, DCPS’
actions “result[ed] in the denial of a FAPE.” A.I. ex rel.
Iapalucci, 402 F. Supp. 2d at 164; see also 20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(c)
(requiring an IEP Team to “determine . . . the educational needs
of the child” based in part upon “input from the child’s
parents”), 1415(b)(1) (requiring “[a]n opportunity for the
parents of a child with a disability to examine all records
relating to such child and to participate in meetings with
respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational
placement of the child”); 34 C.F.R. § 300.322(a). Thus, DCPS’
conduct failed the first prong of the test for whether a public
school placement is appropriate, and Norris has shown that the
hearing officer’s decision that Aiton is an appropriate placement
is flawed.1
1
Norris argues that High Road is the appropriate placement
for J.N., and the hearing officer’s contrary decision is wrong.
“The IDEA requires school districts to place disabled children in
the least restrictive environment possible.” Roark ex rel. Roark
v. District of Columbia, 460 F. Supp. 2d 32, 43 (D.D.C. 2006)
(citing 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5); 34 C.F.R. 300.550; D.C. Mun.
Regs. tit. 5, § 3011 (2006)). “[I]n determining the least
restrictive environment, consideration is given to the types of
services that the child requires.” Id. (citing 34 C.F.R.
§ 300.552(d)). “Mainstreaming of handicapped children into
-17-
CONCLUSION
Although DCPS did not timely comply with the March 2006 HOD,
Norris has failed show that the delay was harmful. However, DCPS
has failed to show that Aiton school officials made any
reasonable efforts to respond to Norris’ requests to reschedule
the IEP meeting. Thus, the hearing officer’s determination that
Norris had an opportunity to participate in J.N.’s IEP and that
J.N.’s placement at Aiton is appropriate will not be sustained.
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment will be
regular school programs where they might have opportunities to
study and to socialize with nonhandicapped children is not only a
laudable goal but is also a requirement of the Act.” DeVries by
DeBlaay v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., 882 F.2d 876, 878 (4th Cir.
1989).
High Road is a full-time special education program with no
general education classes. (Defs.’ Mem. at 14.) None of the
latest evaluations or latest or previous IEPs for J.N. in the
record, however, call for a full-time special education
placement. (A.R., Ex. 2 at 0007; Ex. 7 at 0233; Ex. 9 at 0310,
0319.) Rather, the evaluations reflect that J.N. needs a
combination setting, with both general education and a special
education resource classroom. (A.R., Ex. 9 at 0319.) Moreover,
even though the IDEA guarantees each child a FAPE, it does not
guarantee an “education that is designed according to a parent’s
desires.” Hinson ex rel. N.H. v. Merrit Educ. Ctr., 579 F. Supp.
2d 89, 104-05 (D.D.C. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Because High Road is not the least restrictive environment, the
hearing officer’s finding that J.N.’s placement at High Road is
inappropriate will be upheld despite Norris’ desire to have J.N.
placed at High Road.
-18-
granted in part2 and defendants’ motion for summary judgment will
be granted in part. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum
Opinion.
SIGNED this 11th day of January, 2010.
/s/
RICHARD W. ROBERTS
United States District Judge
2
In her summary judgment motion, Norris seeks attorney’s
fees and costs for this action and the administrative
proceedings. (Pls.’ Mem. at 15.) The IDEA authorizes an “award
[of] attorney’s fees to a ‘prevailing party’ who is the parent of
a disabled child[.]” Jester v. Gov’t of D.C., 474 F.3d 820, 821
(D.C. Cir. 2007); 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). “An action or
proceeding under IDEA includes both civil litigation in federal
court and administrative litigation before hearing officers.”
A.C. ex rel. Clark v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 06-
00439 (HHK), 2009 WL 4840939, at *2 (D.D.C. Dec. 15, 2009). “A
party is generally considered to be the prevailing party if [she]
succeeds ‘on any significant issue in litigation which achieves
some of the benefit . . . sought in bringing suit.’” Artis ex
rel. S.A. v. District of Columbia, 543 F. Supp. 2d 15, 22 (D.D.C.
2008) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983).
Because Norris has succeeded, in part, on the merits of her
complaint, Norris is entitled to attorney’s fees.