student issues/ discipline

Court Upholds Dismissal Of Student Because University Properly Followed Internal Policies And Procedures.

In 2019, Lavanya Vaish (Plaintiff), an undergraduate student at the University of California, Davis (University), was dismissed from the University after a judicial officer in the Office of Student Support and Judicial Affairs (OSSJA) found that she had committed multiple instances of plagiarism. During the first plagiarism instance, OSSJA gave Plaintiff a warning and told her that it would remain on file until she graduated. After the second instance, Plaintiff signed a “Disciplinary Agreement” acknowledging that her behavior constituted academic dishonesty and violated University policy. After the third plagiarism instance, the OSSJA and Plaintiff entering into a deferred separation agreement. The deferred separation agreement stated that Plaintiff would be giving up the right to a formal hearing. However, Plaintiff would still have the right to meet with a judicial officer who would review the evidence, and if she was found in violation again, she would likely be suspended from the University.

At the time Plaintiff entered into the deferred separation agreement, OOSSJA received another report of academic misconduct that Plaintiff had been plagiarizing. The OSSJA judicial officer who investigated the report determined the evidence supported the conclusion that Plaintiff’s behavior violated the University’s code of academic conduct, and dismissed Plaintiff from the University. The judicial officer explained that the University had provided numerous opportunities for Plaintiff to understand and comply with the expectations regarding academic honesty. Plaintiff appealed the decision to the Associate Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, who denied her appeal. Plaintiff then sued the University claiming that the University denied her fair hearing rights. The trial court denied her petition. Plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, Plaintiff challenged the severity of the sanction imposed on her, arguing that dismissal is punishment too harsh for her misconduct. The California Court of Appeal for the Second District concluded the University did not violate Plaintiff’s due process rights because it complied with its own policies and procedures, and under the deferred separation agreement, Plaintiff was not entitled to a formal factfinding hearing because she waived the right to a formal hearing. The Court reviewed the University’s choice of disciplinary sanction on an abuse of discretion standard and found that the University was well within the scope of their discretion to dismiss Plaintiff due to her extensive and repeated history of academic misconduct.

Vaish v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (Cal. App. 2022) WL 15236043.

Court Of Appeal Found University Violated Student’s Due Process Rights Where University Did Not Provide Student With A Fair Hearing.

In 2015, the Title IX compliance officer for the University of California, Davis (University) sent John Doe (John) a letter notifying him of a complaint alleging that he subjected a student, Jane Doe, to threats, verbal abuse, and physical abuse in violation of University policy. Moreover, the letter alleged John forced Jane to be a passenger in his car while he was driving under the influence. The letter stated that the University would investigate the allegation under its sexual harassment and sexual violence policy. The letter also explained that if the investigator substantiated the allegations against John, the University’s Student Judicial Affairs would schedule a formal hearing. If the hearing officer found John had violated university policy, the hearing officer would recommend disciplinary sanctions and Student Judicial Affairs would issue a decision.

The University completed its investigation into the allegations against John and determined that John violated the University’s sexual harassment and sexual violence policy by threatening Jane with physical harm, as well as driving under the influence of alcohol with her as his passenger on multiple occasions. The University sent John a notice of formal hearing, but the notice did not have any reference to any of the University’s sexual harassment or dating violence policies. The University appointed an outside hearing officer to preside over John’s hearing. At the hearing, the hearing officer did not address whether John violated any sexual harassment and dating violence policies, and did not make a recommendation of appropriate sanctions. However, the hearing officer did find Jane to be more credible than John, and that the evidence supported her allegations against John. Based on these findings, the hearing officer found John violated the University’s conduct and discipline policy. The University then imposed disciplinary sanctions and suspended him until the fall of 2017 or after Jane graduated, whichever was later.

John filed a petition against the University in the trial court challenging the University’s disciplinary sanctions. John argued the University’s failure to provide him with notice and a hearing before suspending him in violation of University policy. The trial court denied John’s petition and John appealed.

On appeal, the California Court of Appeal for the Third District concluded that the University failed to provide John with a fair process. The Court of Appeal found the District did not include the policies that prohibited conduct related to sexual harassment and dating violence in the notice of hearing that John received, and the hearing officer did not address these policies at the hearing either. The Court of Appeal concluded the dating violence charges were essentially adjudicated by the investigation report rather than at John’s hearing. Because there was no hearing on these charges, the University deprived John of a fair hearing. The Court of Appeal also found that the University violated its own policy when it appointed an outside hearing officer to preside over the hearing.

Doe v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (2022) Super. Ct. No. CV2016765.

Court Of Appeal Upholds Summary Judgment For University Where Disabled Student Did Not Receive Extension On Paper.

A few hours before the midnight deadline, Natalie Brinkley (Plaintiff), a first year student at California State University, Northridge (CSUN), emailed her professor a request for an extension of time to submit the first three-page essay required in her social science class. Plaintiff’s professor ultimately refused the request, citing a general policy to deny extensions requested close to the deadline. At the time, Plaintiff was receiving special assistance and accommodations from CSUN due to her learning disabilities. Plaintiff accused the professor of being “unethical,” advised the professor that she had “sent a request to civil rights for help,” expressed in an email to her counselor in the Disability Resources and Education Services Center that the professor was being unhelpful, and ultimately made a police report for what she described as “harassment” by CSUN in responding to these circumstances. Plaintiff claimed that CSUN’s response to her complaints triggered a series of adverse health effects, and eventually withdrew from CSUN due to medical reasons.

Plaintiff argued that CSUN failed to provide adequate accommodations in light of her disability and filed a complaint against CSUN alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, as well as for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. CSUN filed a motion for summary judgment for each of Plaintiff’s causes of action, which the trial court granted.

On appeal, the California Court of Appeal for the Third District found that the trial court properly granted summary judgment on each of Plaintiff’s causes of action. As to the ADA claim, the evidence established that Plaintiff was not excluded from CSUN by reason of her disability, and that CSUN attempted to meet her requests for accommodation. The Court of Appeal also found there were no triable disputes of fact as to her Rehabilitation Act claim, since CSUN made accommodations for Plaintiff and did not exclude her from its academic program. Additionally, the trial court properly found that Plaintiff could not maintain an action under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination by businesses, because CSUN is not a business. The Court of Appeal also concluded that Plaintiff could not have prevailed under a negligence cause of action against CSUN’s individual employees, because there is no relief available to plaintiffs based on personal liability on the part of government employees.

As for the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action, the Court of Appeal found that even if Plaintiff suffered extreme anxiety the night her paper was due, the professor’s failure to respond to her extension request before the midnight deadline was not outrageous or extreme enough to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress. Therefore, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of CSUN.

Don’t Miss Our Complimentary Webinar.

AB 1667 and SB 278 – CalPERS and CalSTRS Reporting Errors are Getting More Costly for Districts

March 9, 2023 | 10:00 - 11:15am

SB 278 (CalPERS) and AB 1667 (CalSTRS) are making compensation reporting errors more costly for public agencies, including school and community college districts. CalPERS and CalSTRS have numerous statutory, regulatory, and administrative rules regarding what compensation is reportable for the purposes of including compensation in the calculation of pension benefits. While reporting errors have negatively impacted employee pension benefits, recent legislation shifts liability for pension overpayments resulting from an error in reporting compensation from retirees to public agencies. This presentation will discuss the scope of AB 1667 and SB 278, what risks they present, and how your agency can take proactive steps to mitigate its impact and avoid costly compliance errors.

Who Should Attend?

Agency employees in Human Resources, Payroll, Risk Management, or who participate in labor negotiations should attend this webinar.

Register here.