Jennifer DiPerna v. Chicago School of Professional
893 F.3d 1001
7th Cir.2018Background
- Jennifer DiPerna, a TCSPP graduate student, was disciplined after classmates complained about an Instagram post containing a racial slur; the Student Affairs Committee (SAC) imposed an Academic Development Plan (ADP) and delayed internship entry. DiPerna sued for breach of contract and negligence.
- While the suit was pending, a professor suspected DiPerna plagiarized a portion of a Clinical Competency Examination (CCE); Turnitin checks produced a high similarity for the conceptualization section and a referral to the SAC followed.
- At the SAC hearing on the plagiarism charge, DiPerna was dismissed. She attempted an email appeal which received no response. She amended her complaint to add claims related to dismissal.
- DiPerna conceded some claims (relating to the ADP and internship delay) and her negligence claim; the district court granted summary judgment to TCSPP on the remaining claims relating to dismissal and on damages for tuition and living expenses.
- The district court also granted motions in limine excluding evidence of dismissal-based damages, emotional-distress and attorney-fee evidence, and the plaintiff’s economic expert; without admissible damages evidence plaintiff conceded she could not prevail.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: it found the plagiarism dismissal was not arbitrary or capricious, the SAC’s process and Turnitin evidence provided a rational basis, and exclusion of dismissal-related damages/evidence was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DiPerna’s dismissal for plagiarism was arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith | DiPerna: Turnitin score was only 10% for entire paper; policy (syllabus) set a 20% referral threshold; thus referral/dismissal was arbitrary | TCSPP: Handbook requires referral for any suspected academic dishonesty; faculty observations plus Turnitin and verification provided a rational basis for referral and dismissal | Held: Dismissal was not arbitrary/capricious; SAC had rational basis to find plagiarism and exercise academic judgment |
| Whether Turnitin evidence and course syllabus preclude referral or show irrationality | DiPerna: Turnitin is not conclusive; the syllabus created a safe-harbor 20% rule; her 10% score shows referral improper | TCSPP: Syllabus only created an instructor-level threshold for automatic suspicion; Handbook’s broader rule controls and mandated referral on suspicion | Held: Syllabus did not override Handbook; Turnitin plus faculty observations constituted sufficient evidence to refer and support the SAC decision |
| Whether plaintiff may recover tuition and living expenses (damages) | DiPerna: Extra tuition/living expenses resulted from SAC referral and later dismissal; thus recoverable | TCSPP: Tuition/living claims arise from punishments (ADP, delayed internship, or dismissal); plaintiff conceded claims tied to ADP/delay; dismissal was lawful so no damages flow | Held: Summary judgment for defendant on tuition and living expenses—plaintiff cannot recover because dismissal was not improper and she conceded claims tied to ADP/delay |
| Whether exclusion of dismissal-related evidence and expert testimony (motions in limine) was proper | DiPerna: Excluding dismissal-related evidence and expert damages testimony prevented proof of damages and was erroneous | TCSPP: Dismissal lawful and expert relied on all events including excluded ones; emotional distress and attorney fees not recoverable on contract claim absent special circumstances | Held: No abuse of discretion—motions in limine were proper; exclusion of dismissal-related damages and expert testimony left plaintiff without admissible damages evidence, supporting final judgment for defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Raethz v. Aurora Univ., 805 N.E.2d 696 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (student breach-of-contract claims against private college require showing academic decision was arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith)
- Frederick v. Nw. Univ. Dental Sch., 617 N.E.2d 382 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (same standard for judicial review of academic decisions)
- Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1985) (courts defer to academic judgments and will not substitute their own views)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard: party with burden must show genuine issue for trial)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment: nonmoving party must produce evidence such that a rational jury could find for it)