Academic Dismissal Ryan J. Service

Four short briefs involving cases of academic dismissal

In general, most cases reviewed plaintiffs/students are suing on grounds of due process rights.

Cases that were won by students tended to be because of due process right violations.

Courts believe that the classroom is not the courtroom.

Introduction

Issue-◦ Student was dismissed from the nursing program

at Walters State Community College after receiving a failing grade in a clinical nursing course.

◦ Student appealed decision and administration denied the appeal.

◦ Student sued for violation of her procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment

ROGERS vs. TENNESSEE BOARD OF REGENTS

History◦ December 10, 2004, Rogers filed in United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee◦ Granted summary judgment◦ Appealed to Court of Appeals

ROGERS vs. TENNESSEE BOARD OF REGENTS

Facts◦ Rogers failed a course sequence during the Fall

2002 semester.◦ WSCC's academic policy does not allow a student

who failed a nursing course to progress.◦ WSCC readmitted Rogers and allowed her to retake

the course sequence during the Fall 2003 semester.◦ November 2003, Rogers was given a warning she

was failing◦ Dec. 2003 Rogers failed course evaluation ◦ Rogers appealed and administration denied the

appeal

ROGERS vs. TENNESSEE BOARD OF REGENTS

Decision◦ Court of Appeals held that

(1) student was afforded constitutionally sufficient process, and

(2) student's interest in her nursing education was not protected by substantive due process.

ROGERS vs. TENNESSEE BOARD OF REGENTS

Decision◦ In cases of academic dismissal from a state

educational institution, as long as student is informed and care is taken with dismissal due process is met.

◦ NO formal hearing is required.

ROGERS vs. TENNESSEE BOARD OF REGENTS

Issue◦ Qualls, a former business student at Northern

Illinois University sued the university and a number of its officers under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state tort law, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to the existence of a racially hostile educational environment that caused his academic dismissal.

Qualls vs. Cunningham

History◦ United States District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of defendant

◦ Student appealed to U.S. Court of Appeals

Qualls vs. Cunningham

Facts◦ In the fall of 1998, Qualls joined the campus chapter

of the NAACP and role of Public Relations Officer◦ Wrote several letters about racial profiling to the

editor of the student newspaper◦ He and other members of the campus NAACP

executive board took up the cause of a black campus police officer who was allegedly terminated for complaining about his fellow officers discriminatory treatment of black students.

◦ Qualls ended his affiliation with the NAACP because of fear of retaliation from police.

Qualls vs. Cunningham

Facts◦ Spring 2000, the university dismissed Qualls for

repeatedly failing to maintain a minimally acceptable grade point average.

◦ In January 2001, he filed a formal grievance under the school's Affirmative Action procedures which was unsuccessful

Qualls vs. Cunningham

Decision◦ No reasonable person could find that Qualls was

deprived of his educational opportunities just because the campus police kept tabs on him from a distance and the university administrators ignored his complaints.

◦ NIU policy for dealing with racial discrimination were adequate.

◦ Qualls failed to support his claim of retaliation.

Qualls vs. Cunningham

Issue ◦ Singh sued because she said academic dismissal

was violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

SINGH vs. GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH

History◦ The United States District Court for the District of

Columbia found that Singh partial summary judgment on the issue of

impairment, holding that she “suffers from some kind of mental impairment,” either “a learning disability” or a “psychiatric disorder such as depression.”

court found that Singh had failed to prove that she was disabled under the ADA

◦ Appealed to U.S. Court of Appeals

SINGH vs. GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH

Facts◦ Singh had great academic career however she did poorly

on multiple choice tests including MCATs.◦ She was admitted on a reduced load basis and with lower

academic dismissal boundaries.◦ Singh received failing grades even within her program and

faculty member moved to have her dismissed◦ Soon after GW's Disability Support Services diagnosed

Singh with dyslexia and a mild disorder of processing speed, and recommended various accommodations to improve her performance.

◦ Singh communicated the diagnosis and a request for accommodations to Dean Williams.

◦ Singh was dismissed.

SINGH vs. GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH

Decision◦ Unreasonable to not act on disability diagnosis.◦ Learning not test taking was student’s major life

activity◦ Student was otherwise qualified.

SINGH vs. GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH

Issue◦ Sharon G. Trotter was dismissed due to poor

academic performance. Trotter sued based on violation of due process rights.

TROTTER vs. THE REGENTS of the UNIVERSITY of NEW MEXICO

History◦ April 10, 1998, Trotter filed complaint in U.S.

District Court for District of New Mexico.◦ Dismissed action◦ Appealed to U.S. Court of Appeals

TROTTER vs. THE REGENTS of the UNIVERSITY of NEW MEXICO

Facts◦ Trotter dismissed for poor academic performance◦ Trotter filed a lawsuit, but she was reinstated

however, she must meet academic conditions◦ Trotter dismissed a 2nd time◦ Appealed 2nd dismissal to the Education Council

which upheld dismissal

TROTTER vs. THE REGENTS of the UNIVERSITY of NEW MEXICO

Facts◦ Appealed to the Dean who reinstated her based

on academic conditions◦ Trotter dismissed a 3rd time. ◦ Trotter appealed to President, and board. All

upheld dismissal◦ Filed complaint with Dept of Ed Civil rights office

who said her due process was not violated.

TROTTER vs. THE REGENTS of the UNIVERSITY of NEW MEXICO

Decision◦ University went beyond what was constitutionally

required.◦ Trotter has failed to show that any of the

defendants violated her due process rights◦ notice of appeal was timely filed◦ university officials were entitled to qualified

immunity from suit.

TROTTER vs. THE REGENTS of the UNIVERSITY of NEW MEXICO

What is the difference between academic dismissal and disciplinary dismissal?

Do the courts have a place in the classroom?

Discussion