172 F. Supp. 3d 38
D.D.C.2016Background
- Sina Chenari, a George Washington University (GWU) medical student, continued filling answers on an NBME-administered multiple-choice answer sheet for ~90–120 seconds after proctor called time on Dec. 14, 2012, despite being orally directed to stop and a proctor’s attempt to remove the test materials.
- GWU followed its disciplinary Regulations/Honor Code: Subcommittee, MSEC, Dean of Medical School, and Provost all reviewed the matter; Chenari admitted the conduct and characterized it as a mistake but denied an intent to deceive.
- GWU concluded Chenari violated the Honor Code (Section F(2)(a)(6) — catch‑all for breaches of commonly understood academic honesty), recommended dismissal, and the dismissal was upheld on internal appeal.
- Chenari sued for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Counts I–II), and for discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act and ADA (Counts III–IV).
- Court granted GWU summary judgment on contract claims because the dismissal had a rational basis and on statutory claims because Chenari never gave decision‑makers notice of his ADHD nor requested accommodations; no evidence of discrimination or retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GWU breached contract / implied covenant by dismissing Chenari for academic dishonesty | Chenari: his post‑time transfer of answers lacked deceit and therefore was not "academic dishonesty"; dismissal was arbitrary | GWU: Chenari admitted misconduct; Honor Code broadly covers conduct that gains unfair advantage; academic decisions get deference and university had rational basis | Court: Granted summary judgment for GWU — dismissal had rational basis and process followed |
| Standard of review for academic dismissal | Chenari: argued interpretation of Honor Code should favor him | GWU: courts must defer to academic judgment unless no rational basis or bad faith | Court: Applied deferential rational‑basis review (courts intervene only for lack of rational basis or bad faith) and found no such showing |
| Failure to accommodate under Rehabilitation Act / ADA (notice & request) | Chenari: he told school officials about ADHD (claimed several conversations) and was entitled to accommodations (e.g., extra time) | GWU: No evidence decision‑makers were notified; Chenari never requested accommodations nor contacted Disability Support Services | Court: Granted summary judgment for GWU — Chenari provided no actual/constructive notice to decision‑makers and never requested an accommodation |
| Disability discrimination / retaliation | Chenari: dismissal was discriminatory and retaliatory based on his ADHD and advocacy | GWU: No awareness by decision‑makers of any disability; no protected activity prior to dismissal | Court: Granted summary judgment for GWU — no evidence causal awareness or protected activity existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (view facts in light most favorable to non‑movant but courts may draw reasonable inferences)
- Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (deference to academic judgments)
- Alden v. Georgetown Univ., 734 A.2d 1103 (D.C. 1999) (contractual relationship between university and student; review limited for academic dismissal)
- Arrington v. United States, 473 F.3d 329 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (self‑serving testimony insufficient to create genuine factual dispute)
- Crandall v. Paralyzed Veterans of Am., 146 F.3d 894 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (notice requirement for Rehabilitation Act/ADA failure‑to‑accommodate claims)