Eric Hlavacek v. Ann Boyle
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24133
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Hlavacek was dismissed from SIU's four-year dental program for unsatisfactory academic performance after multiple failing grades and probationary periods.
- SIU provided multiple opportunities to retake courses and remediate; Hlavacek remained unable to meet expectations despite several chances.
- Following dismissal, Hlavacek pursued several appeals within SIU and university administration, all of which were denied.
- Hlavacek challenged only procedural due process in district court; the district court dismissed the claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The March 12, 2008 dismissal letter contained two factual errors about probation status and a hearing date, which SIU acknowledged and corrected.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court, holding that SIU’s process was ample and that the university could rely on its academic judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a cognizable property interest and due process owed? | Hlavacek contends due process was lacking for dismissal. | SIU's academic-dismissal procedures require no hearing and provided ample process. | No due process violation; process was ample and sufficient. |
| Did SIU provide ample process in an academic dismissal? | Hlavacek argues procedures were inadequate or biased. | SIU offered extensive opportunities to appeal and remediate; process met standards. | Yes; SIU provided ample, careful, and deliberate process. |
| Did the erroneous March 12 letter taint the process? | Error about a hearing date undermines the fairness of the process. | SIU corrected the error promptly and provided documentation showing no July 9, 2007 hearing. | No material prejudice; error did not undermine process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fenje v. Feld, 398 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2005) (academic dismissals require no hearing; process must be careful and deliberate)
- Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1978) (standard for due process in educational dismissals)
- Martin v. Helstad, 699 F.2d 387 (7th Cir. 1983) (no hearing required for poor academic performance dismissals)
- Bissessur v. Ind. Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 581 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2009) (deference to professional judgment in academic decisions)
- Ross v. Creighton Univ., 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992) (recognizes deference to faculty on academic matters)
- Omosegbon v. Wells, 335 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2003) (requires cognizable property interest and due process analysis for state action)