DiPerna v. Chicago School of Professional Psychology
222 F. Supp. 3d 716
N.D. Ill.2016Background
- Jennifer DiPerna, a former student at The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, sued for breach of contract and negligence after dismissal from the counseling program for alleged plagiarism and after reporting repeated bullying/harassment by classmates and faculty interactions.
- In 2013 DiPerna participated in a class Immersion Project; conflicts with a classmate (Shakira) and reports of bullying were communicated to adjunct faculty and department chairs; DiPerna alleges the school failed to investigate or discipline the harassing students.
- In July–August 2013 DiPerna was questioned about an Instagram post containing a racial slur; she admitted posting it but said it was private and meant humorously. DiPerna complained that others made similar posts but were not disciplined.
- In 2015 DiPerna’s Clinical Competency Examination (CCE) was reviewed for plagiarism; turnitin.com flagged the conceptualization section heavily, the SAC found academic dishonesty, and DiPerna was dismissed after a hearing and appeal process.
- DiPerna claims the school breached its Handbook procedures (regarding ADP development, handling of bullying complaints, and plagiarism process), treated her arbitrarily/unequally on Instagram, and failed to follow grievance/appeal rules; she concedes some claims (ADP/delayed internship) are time-barred and that negligence claims seeking purely economic loss are barred by Illinois law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the school breach its contract by failing to address reported bullying/harassment? | DiPerna: school admitted conduct met Handbook definition of harassment but took no disciplinary action and failed to investigate; she used internal channels and was told how to grieve. | School: no formal grievance filed; some reporting was not "immediate"; no requirement to use second procedure. | Genuine issue of material fact exists; summary judgment denied as to bullying/harassment. |
| Did the school act arbitrarily in disciplining DiPerna for an Instagram post while not disciplining others? | DiPerna: other students used the same slur on Instagram; she produced posts and can authenticate them; selective enforcement. | School: social-media posts are hard to authenticate; no evidence others were disciplined. | Genuine issue of material fact exists as to selective enforcement; summary judgment denied on Instagram claim. |
| Was dismissal for plagiarism an arbitrary, contract-violating decision? | DiPerna: turnitin use improper; hand-typing into turnitin was improper; expert showed lower similarity; school tolerated some plagiarism. | School: Handbook prohibits plagiarism; turnitin findings supported SAC referral and dismissal; DiPerna offered no admissible evidence of tolerated plagiarism or procedural infirmity constituting new evidence on appeal. | Court granted summary judgment for defendant on plagiarism claim — no genuine dispute that dismissal had a rational basis. |
| Is DiPerna’s negligence claim and recovery of tuition/living expenses viable? | DiPerna sought negligence damages and tuition/living costs tied to alleged mishandling of complaints and ADP/internship delay. | School: Illinois economic-loss doctrine bars negligence recovery for purely economic loss; DiPerna conceded ADP/delay claims are time-barred and tuition/living expenses arise from dismissal for plagiarism. | Court granted summary judgment on negligence and on claimed tuition/living expenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Servs., 368 F.3d 809 (2004) (strict compliance with local rule 56.1 required)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (summary-judgment factual view rule)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (moving party's initial summary-judgment burden)
- Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985) (courts defer to academic judgments absent arbitrary or irrational decision)
- Raethz v. Aurora Univ., 346 Ill. App. 3d 728 (2004) (student–university contractual relationship and standard for review of adverse academic decisions)
- Gunville v. Walker, 583 F.3d 979 (2009) (inadmissible hearsay cannot defeat summary judgment)