Buescher v. Baldwin Wallace University
86 F. Supp. 3d 789
N.D. Ohio2015Background
- Five students (Buescher, Kopper, Lane, Rodriguez, Kellett) sued Baldwin Wallace University (BWU) and Dean Guy Farish alleging breaches arising from BWU’s new 12‑month ABSN program (misleading enrollment, wrongful termination, discrimination, failure to accommodate, and related torts/contract claims).
- Plaintiffs relied in part on an Ohio Board of Nursing–BWU Consent Agreement (issued after program deficiencies were discovered) and various affidavits describing a temporary shift from letter grades to pass/fail, redistribution of clinical hours, and alleged inconsistent make‑ups of clinical time.
- BWU’s ABSN Student Handbook (provided to students) set progression/dismissal standards (minimum 2.75 term GPA, no more than two C’s, failure = dismissal), clinical attendance rules (two or more missed clinical days = course failure), and a process for disability accommodations (must provide Disability Services letter each semester and notify instructors).
- Key plaintiff facts: Buescher had ADD, sent verification forms but did not complete the Disability Services application or present a semester letter; Kopper had wrist injuries, missed clinicals and voluntarily withdrew; Lane made a clinical error and withdrew after Nursing Council review; Rodriguez and Kellett received grades resulting in dismissal under handbook rules.
- Court considered (1) defendants’ motion to strike the Consent Agreement and certain affidavits and (2) defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Counts I (breach of contract), V (ADA/Rehab Act failure to accommodate as to Buescher), VI, VII, VIII (constructive dismissal/retaliation as to Kopper and Lane), and X (negligent misrepresentation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract (Handbook) | BWU changed grading scheme, redistributed clinical hours, inconsistently allowed make‑ups, altered syllabi, and failed to follow handbook/OBN rules causing dismissals | Handbook governed; changes weren’t shown to cause plaintiffs’ dismissals; many averments are opinion/hearsay or lack personal knowledge; students violated handbook procedures (e.g., didn’t follow grievance or disability submission rules) | Summary judgment for defendants: plaintiffs failed to show a breach producing their damages or that academic actions were arbitrary and capricious |
| Failure to accommodate (ADA/Rehab Act) — Buescher | Romeo’s email saying ABSN doesn’t make accommodations excused Buescher from paperwork; BWU failed to accommodate her ADD | Buescher didn’t complete Disability Services application nor present a semester accommodation letter required by handbook; she didn’t request/complete the interactive process | Summary judgment for defendants: no timely, proper request or interactive process by Buescher |
| Constructive dismissal/retaliation — Kopper & Lane | They were effectively forced to withdraw (Kopper by clinical rules after injury; Lane after clinical safety concerns) | Both voluntarily withdrew and were told they could return; constructive discharge is employment doctrine and not a standalone student cause of action | Summary judgment for defendants: no viable constructive dismissal claim; plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew or were dismissed under handbook rules |
| Negligent misrepresentation | BWU/administrators gave false/misleading statements about grades, accommodations, make‑ups, and clinical policies causing financial loss | Statements didn’t cause plaintiffs’ dismissals; reliance and causation are unsupported; many statements are privileged/inauthentic (consent agreement inadmissible) | Summary judgment for defendants: no admissible evidence of false statements causing pecuniary loss through justifiable reliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burden allocation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (sufficiency of evidence to survive summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant, and when summary judgment appropriate)
- Bleicher v. Univ. of Cincinnati College of Medicine, 78 Ohio App.3d 302 (academic handbook forms contractual relationship; courts defer to academic judgment absent arbitrary/capricious action)
- Tolton v. American Biodyne, Inc., 48 F.3d 937 (summary judgment: burden when plaintiff will bear burden at trial)
- Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 143 F.3d 1042 (initial burden to request accommodation under ADA context)