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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Issue
◦ Singh sued because she said academic dismissal
was violation of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

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

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.

Decision
◦ Unreasonable to not act on disability diagnosis.
◦ Learning not test taking was student’s major life
activity
◦ Student was otherwise qualified.

Issue
◦ Sharon G. Trotter was dismissed due to poor
academic performance. Trotter sued based on
violation of due process rights.

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

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

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.

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.


What is the difference between academic
dismissal and disciplinary dismissal?
Do the courts have a place in the classroom?