938 F.3d 281
6th Cir.2019Background
- NEOMED medical student Julian Endres, diagnosed with ADHD, was accused of cheating on a September 28, 2015 exam after proctors noted suspicious glances and a video review showed repeated glances toward a neighbor’s laptop; 84% of Endres’s answers matched Student B’s.
- Chief student affairs officer Sandra Emerick investigated, referred the matter to the Committee on Academic and Professional Progress (CAPP), and presented evidence (including a statistical analysis by Professor Thewissen) at hearings; Endres alleges he did not receive key materials before or during CAPP’s presentations.
- Endres submitted medical documentation explaining that ADHD symptoms (and a recent medication change) produced fidgeting and glances; he sought a field test and statistical rebuttal but NEOMED limited his ability to introduce or distribute that material in appeals.
- CAPP found Endres responsible after two hearings; the Executive Review Committee (ERC) remanded for rehearing but later CAPP again voted to dismiss on November 19, 2015, ending NEOMED’s internal process.
- Endres sued in federal court on November 16, 2017 under § 1983 (procedural due process) and the ADA/Rehabilitation Act; the district court dismissed as time-barred and alternatively found Emerick entitled to qualified immunity.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed on timeliness (statute of limitations accrual) and held Endres alleged sufficient procedural due process violations but affirmed qualified immunity for Emerick as to monetary damages (injunctive/declaratory relief still available).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the statute of limitations accrue for Endres’s claims? | Accrual date is Nov. 19, 2015 (when CAPP’s second, final dismissal was communicated after appeals exhausted). | Accrual date is Oct. 22, 2015 (when first CAPP decision announced). | Accrual began Nov. 19, 2015; suit timely. |
| Was Endres’s dismissal an academic decision (minimal process) or disciplinary (robust process)? | Cheating allegation required first-level factfinding (disciplinary); thus more process was due. | NEOMED characterized the issue as academic/professional and followed academic processes. | Dismissal was disciplinary in nature; heightened due process protections applied. |
| Did NEOMED afford minimal constitutional process (right to be present, notice of evidence)? | NEOMED excluded Endres during opponents’ presentations, withheld key evidence (Thewissen analysis, Emerick memo) until after hearings, and restricted evidence at rehearing—violating procedural due process. | NEOMED contends procedures used complied with required process for academic/professional review. | Allegations, taken as true, show procedural due process violations (exclusion from presentations; lack of notice of critical evidence). |
| Is Emerick entitled to qualified immunity for alleged due process violations? | Emerick violated clearly established rights to a fair hearing and notice. | Law here was not clearly established; no bright-line precedent compelled denial of immunity. | Qualified immunity affirmed for Emerick as to monetary damages because the contours of the right were not sufficiently clearly established; injunctive/declaratory relief still available. |
Key Cases Cited
- Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (case on accrual of claims where final institutional decision and remedies determine accrual)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (procedural protections required before exclusionary school discipline)
- Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (academic dismissals require minimal process; courts defer to academic judgment)
- Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393 (university suspension implicates protected property interest and requires process)
- Flaim v. Med. Coll. of Ohio, 418 F.3d 629 (student disciplinary/due-process standards in higher-education settings)
- Al-Dabagh v. Case Western Reserve Univ., 777 F.3d 355 (professionalism-based academic judgments entitled to deference)
- Janikowski v. Bendix Corp., 823 F.2d 945 (accrual may occur at notice of termination even if final consequences later)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (federal law governs accrual of claims)
- Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262 (accrual when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of injury)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (clearly established law must be particularized to case facts)