450 F. App'x 500
6th Cir.2011Background
- Anderson, an undergraduate, was accused of unauthorized assistance after his physics test showed striking similarities to another student’s answers.
- The Honor Council found Anderson guilty on January 16, 2008, and expelled him due to it being his second violation.
- The Appellate Review Board remanded for a new hearing because Anderson lacked an opportunity to fully present his account.
- A second hearing found Anderson guilty, and the Board affirmed; he was expelled at the end of Fall 2008.
- Anderson filed suit asserting negligent conduct and breach of an implied contract, among other claims, which the district court dismissed on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract standard | Anderson argues the Honor Council’s finding violated the clear and convincing standard. | Vanderbilt contends ample evidence supported guilt and no procedural defect required reversal. | District court proper; no breach given evidence supported guilt under the standard. |
| Remand and presiding officer disclosures | Presiding officer’s knowledge/disclosure violated a promise and the remand order. | Second hearing had a new panel and no breach of promise occurred. | Summary judgment proper; no breach shown. |
| Allowance of opinion testimony by professor | Handbook prohibits or limits opinion testimony by accusers. | Handbook allows accusers to provide a general account; no restriction on testimony type. | No violation; testimony permissible. |
| Second appeal dismissal by Board Chair | Bra u improperly dismissed portions of the petition, not just grounded on merit. | Chair had discretion to determine sufficiency and forward only relevant sections. | Majority: no material factual issue; dismissal within rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atria v. Vanderbilt Univ., 142 Fed.Appx. 246 (6th Cir.2005) (genuine issue of fact re board dismissal of petition components)
- Doherty v. S. Coll. of Optometry, 862 F.2d 570 (6th Cir.1988) (recognizes contractual nature of student-university relationships and deferential standard)
- Parsons v. City of Pontiac, 533 F.3d 492 (6th Cir.2008) (summary judgment standard; de novo review of district court)