LEARN
MORE

University Potentially Liable for Contract and Discrimination Claims Based on Student’s Academic Suspension

CATEGORY: Private Education Matters
CLIENT TYPE: Private Education
DATE: Oct 30, 2024

Harini Reddy was a full-time student enrolled in the University of Pennsylvania’s post-baccalaureate program. Post-baccalaureate programs are designed to support a transition to professional school (in this case, medical school) after the completion of an undergraduate degree.

Reddy was the only South Asian woman in her program. She alleged that Professor Simon Tong, her instructor in her chemistry lab and lecture, made the classes more difficult for her compared to other students who were not of darker skin tone. For example, Reddy alleged that Professor Tong was reluctant to waive a late penalty for one online quiz that Reddy submitted, but consistently waived late penalties and granted extensions for white men, including H.B., who was informed that he could submit his reports at any time before the end of the semester without a late penalty.

When working on the final version of her Lab Report for the class, Reddy collaborated with H.B. and another student, A.R., a minority female classmate. Under class policy, collaboration was permitted throughout the course. Reddy sent H.B. her completed Lab Report, which H.B. forwarded to A.R. After using Reddy’s work product, A.R. submitted her Lab Report on the evening on April 29, 2021. Reddy submitted her Lab Report on April 30, 2021, even though she had completed it the day before.

On May 12, Reddy received a letter from the Office of Student Conduct, notifying her that she had been accused of violating the University’s Code of Academic Integrity. This Notice Letter described an allegation from Professor Tong that Reddy’s Lab Report was substantially similar to another student’s Lab Report.

Reddy made a formal bias incident report to the University regarding the discrimination to which she had been subjected in her courses. Reddy noted that she and A.R. were being accused of cheating, while H.B., a white man who was involved in the incident, was not.

Reddy met with Vice Provost and Director of the University’s Women’s Center and described the discriminatory incidents she had experienced, but the meeting was cut short and there was never another meeting. Subsequently, Reddy received an official letter charging her with an academic integrity violation.

Reddy requested a hearing, which was scheduled for August 26, 2021. The hearing was held remotely, with some members of the Hearing Panel attending in person, and others by video. The format led to technical issues, with witness testimony halted on several occasions, affecting the ability to assess credibility. There were also procedural problems, including that Reddy was promised that witnesses would be sequestered and then were not. For example, Professor Tong testified as a witness, and then remained in the hearing room, making it difficult for Reddy to present her side of the story.

After the hearing, Reddy was found responsible for violating the Academic Integrity Code and recommended a one-and-a-half-year suspension, a transcript notation of the violation during the suspension, and a requirement that Reddy write A.R. an apology letter. A.R. was not found responsible. Reddy appealed the decision, but it was upheld.

In July 2022, Reddy filed a complaint of retaliation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and breach of contract. The University of Pennsylvania moved to dismiss the claim.

Title VI prohibits discrimination under any program that receives federal financial assistance. To state a claim for retaliation under Title VI, a plaintiff must plead facts showing that: (1) she was engaged in a protected activity; (2) the funded entity subjected her to an adverse action after or contemporaneously with the protected activity; and (3) there is a causal link between the adverse action and the protected activity.

For the first prong, the Court found that Reddy’s email to Professor Tong, raising concerns of racial bias, the formal bias incident report Reddy submitted to the University, and Reddy’s subsequent meeting with the Vice Provost and Director of the University’s Women’s Center each constituted protected activity. For the second prong, the Court found that Reddy sufficiently alleged that she was charged with and found responsible for an academic integrity violation contemporaneously or shortly after she made her complaints of discriminatory treatment.

For the third prong, the University argued that Reddy failed to show a causal link between her complaints about Professor Tong and the Hearing Panel’s findings, as the decision-makers on the Hearing Panel were unaware of the discrimination complaints that Reddy made. However, the Court found that since Professor Tong was directly involved in the disciplinary proceedings against Reddy, even though he did not sit on the Hearing Panel, his initial accusation of academic misconduct triggered all of the proceedings against Reddy. Accordingly, the Court denied the University’s motion to dismiss.

For Reddy’s contract claims, she alleged that the University breached a number of promises, including the University’s Retaliation Policy and the University’s Student Disciplinary System Charter.

To state a claim for breach of contract under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract; and (3) damages.

The relationship between a private educational institution and an enrolled student is contractual in nature; therefore, a student can bring a cause of action against a school for breach of contract where the school ignores or violates portions of the written contract. The contract includes any agreement between the parties concerning disciplinary procedures, contained within a portion of the student handbook.

Here, the University argued that the policies Reddy identified did not create enforceable, written contracts. For example, the Retaliation Policy is part of the Human Resources Policy Manual, and only applies to employees not students. And, even if they applied to students, there is a disclaimer that the policies contained in the manual are not legal documents and not intended to establish a contract.

The Court agreed with the University and found that Reddy was not a party to the Retaliation Policy. The Court reasoned that a policy located in a human resources manual for university employees is materially distinguishable from procedures found in a student handbook. While the Retaliation Policy contained language relevant to student interests, the impact on third parties (such as students) is not enough to establish that it applies to students.

For the Disciplinary Charter, the University argued that Reddy failed to identify duties in the Charter corresponding to the University’s alleged breaches.

Reddy argued that the University breached the Charter in a number of ways, including failing to afford her the presumption of innocence, failing to provide sufficient notice of misconduct, failing to provide proper disclosure of the exhibits for the hearing, failing to reschedule the hearing and denying use of a forensic expert, and recommending a disproportionate sanction given her disciplinary record.

The Court largely agreed with Reddy, finding that the University did provide Reddy sufficient notice of her misconduct in the letter and the University’s failure to take Reddy’s “spotless” record into account was not a violation of the Charter. As to the other allegations, the Court allowed Reddy’s claims to proceed, finding that Reddy did plead sufficient facts to allege breach of contract based on the Disciplinary Charter’s provisions.

Reddy v. Univ. of Pa. (E.D.Pa. Aug. 22, 2024) 2024 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 150254.

Note: This case shows the types of claims a student may bring following a suspension. It is crucial that schools follow its policies when handling disciplinary matters.

View More News

Private Education Matters
California Universities Do Not Have Duty To Protect Students From Emotional Harm
READ MORE
Private Education Matters
Private School Cannot Broadcast Pre-Game Prayer During Championship Football Game
READ MORE