Horner-Neufeld v. University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences.
2017 Alas. LEXIS 6
| Alaska | 2017Background
- Gayle Horner-Neufeld was a UAF Ph.D. student in marine biology (2003–2009) who performed well in coursework but repeatedly failed to produce a satisfactory thesis proposal, obtain sufficient research funding, or advance to candidacy.
- She cycled through multiple advisors (co-advisors resigned in 2004; others withdrew later); she received two "Conditional" annual committee reports and went long periods without a functioning advisory committee.
- SFOS administrators warned her in writing in 2005 that she would be dismissed if she failed to secure an advisor; the program provided assistance (funded travel, incentives, mediation).
- Horner-Neufeld filed an internal discrimination/retaliation/hostile-environment complaint with the University OEO in 2009; OEO concluded actions were based on poor research performance, not discrimination.
- The Graduate School formally de‑listed/dismissed her for lack of a committee and unsatisfactory progress; academic appeals were denied and the superior court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OEO’s no-discrimination finding was supported | Horner‑Neufeld: adverse actions were retaliation for complaints and not based on performance; OEO investigation incomplete | Univ: evidence shows actions stemmed from poor research performance, not protected-class discrimination or retaliation | Court: OEO findings supported by substantial evidence; no discrimination or retaliation shown |
| Adequacy of procedural notice under university rules | Horner‑Neufeld: lacked required written "fair warning" and other procedural protections in faculty advising manual | Univ: advising manual is faculty‑oriented and catalog/control documents provided adequate notice; University substantially complied with policies | Court: University substantially complied with its policies and student received adequate notice |
| Constitutional (procedural/substantive) due process | Horner‑Neufeld: dismissal violated due process; entitlement to more process or hearing | Univ: academic dismissals require only notice and careful decision; faculty discretion in academic judgment | Court: procedural due process satisfied (notice and careful decision); substantive due process not violated — dismissal within academic norms |
| Breach of implied contract / covenant of good faith | Horner‑Neufeld: University breached implied contractual duties or covenant by failing to follow procedures or act in good faith | Univ: no breach; even if contractual obligations existed, University complied with policies and acted reasonably | Court: need not decide contract existence; no breach shown and good‑faith efforts by University established |
Key Cases Cited
- Richards v. University of Alaska, 370 P.3d 603 (Alaska 2016) (standard for appellate review of agency factual findings)
- Nickerson v. University of Alaska Anchorage, 975 P.2d 46 (Alaska 1999) (review standard for university policy compliance and academic dismissals)
- Bruner v. Petersen, 944 P.2d 43 (Alaska 1997) (deference to academic decisionmakers)
- Gottstein v. State, Department of Natural Resources, 223 P.3d 609 (Alaska 2010) (standard review of superior court discretion)
- Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1985) (courts should respect faculty academic judgments)
- Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1978) (no requirement of formal hearing for academic dismissals)