985 N.E.2d 35
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Chang was a student in IPFW's CHHS Department of Nursing from 2007.
- October 30, 2008 incident with another student led to professional-misconduct allegations.
- CHHS Nursing Department suspended Chang pending an investigation and removed her from clinical duties.
- A Nursing Department hearing, Student Appeals Committee, Campus Appeals Board, and Chancellor Wartell reviewed and sustained dismissal.
- Chang filed suit October 6, 2009 alleging §1983 due process violations, Indiana Constitution due process, contract breach, and tort claims.
- Jury found Purdue did not breach; trial court denied remaining relief; ITCA-related tort claims dismissed for lack of notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| breach of contract: codes govern dismissal procedures | Chang contends Purdue/IPFW codes apply and were not followed. | Defendants argue flexible, expert judgments govern academic dismissals; not necessary to follow internal codes. | No reversible error; Purdue/IPFW procedures followed; contract not breached. |
| §1983 claim for due process against officials | Chang seeks reinstatement and expungement for due process denial. | No post-deprivation due process violation given post-deprivation remedy. | Summary judgment for defendants; no §1983 violation. |
| Indiana Constitution Article I, Section 12 claim | State due process rights violated under Indiana Constitution. | Federal due process analysis controls; no independent state claim. | Indiana constitutional claim rejected; no due process violation. |
| tortious interference claims against IPFW officials | Wrongful interference with education rights and contract. | ITCA notice requirements bar claims; actions within scope of employment immune. | Summary judgment for defendants; ITCA notice and scope-of-employment defenses upheld. |
| exclusion of Grace Decker and Chris Mertz testimony | Testimony relevant to procedures and incident context. | Testimony irrelevant to contract procedures; prejudicial or duplicative. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; exclusion affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amaya v. Brater, 981 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (limits on court review of academic disciplinary decisions; deference to professional judgments)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (S. Ct. 1984) (post-deprivation remedies negate §1983 due process for property losses)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (S. Ct. 1991) (absolute immunity limited to certain officials)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (S. Ct. 1976) (official immunity framework for prosecutorial functions)
- Sanchez v. State, 749 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. 2001) (Indiana constitutional due process not identical to federal)