Furey v. Temple University
884 F. Supp. 2d 223
E.D. Pa.2012Background
- Kevin Furey, Temple University student, was accused for an April 5, 2008 incident involving an off-duty Philadelphia officer and a machete.
- Temple charged Furey under the University Code of Conduct for assault, possession of a weapon, and disorderly conduct, triggering a disciplinary process.
- A Pre-Hearing Meeting and a Full Panel Hearing were conducted; the hearing featured University and police witnesses and was conducted in a non-adversarial format.
- The Hearing Panel found Furey responsible and recommended expulsion; the Review Board reviewed the appeal materials and recommended some grounds for relief, including insufficient evidence for one charge and disproportionate sanctions.
- Theresa Powell, as VP for Student Affairs, ultimately upheld the Hearing Panel’s expulsion after Carry’s review; the court later vacated the expulsion and ordered reinstatement unless a constitutionally compliant new hearing occurs within 60 days.
- The court concluded that, although the University’s disciplinary framework is sound, significant flaws in Carry’s review and in the Hearing process violated procedural due process, and thus liability against individual defendants is established with qualified immunity applying to those individuals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the disciplinary process conducted with due process under Mathews v. Eldridge? | Furey argues process was flawed at multiple stages, undermining fairness. | Temple argues the process complied with the Code and due process standards. | Yes; due process violations found in the aggregate process. |
| Was there proper facial jurisdiction under the Code to discipline off-campus conduct? | Furey contends off-campus conduct was improperly within University jurisdiction. | Temple contends jurisdiction properly extends 500 yards and to safety threats. | No constitutional violation; jurisdiction properly exercised. |
| Did notice and disclosure of charges and potential sanctions meet due process? | Notice was insufficient about witnesses and potential sanctions. | Notice provided sufficient charges, witnesses, and the opportunity to defend. | Notice adequate; due process not violated on this basis. |
| Did the right to cross-examination and to counsel affect fairness? | Cross-examination via the Chair was insufficient and counsel should have active role. | Cross-examination through the Chair sufficed; active counsel not required. | Cross-examination adequate; active counsel not required by due process. |
| Were absent witnesses and potential perjury issues a due process problem? | Absent witnesses impaired credibility determinations and fairness. | University attempted to secure attendance; absence not fatal to fairness. | No procedural violation based solely on witness absence, though fairness concerns persist. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1975) (established notice and hearing basic requirements in school disciplinary actions)
- Palmer v. Merluzzi, 868 F.2d 90 (3d Cir. 1989) (Mathews factors apply to determining process due in expulsions)
- Sill v. Pennsylvania State University, 462 F.2d 463 (3d Cir. 1972) (due process requires notice and a fair opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (due process in parole revocation—framework for balancing interests in process)