Patrick McMahon v. Susan Salmond
573 F. App'x 128
3rd Cir.2014Background
- McMahon, a decorated former Air Force Captain, enrolled in UMDNJ's CRNA program in 2007 to become a nurse anesthetist.
- There is a dispute over which grading policy applied to McMahon: the 2007 PPM vs the later 2008/2009 policies that tightened grade requirements.
- McMahon received Cs and C+s (Fall 2007, Spring 2009, Spring 2010) though his GPA stayed above 3.0, triggering dispute over whether policies allowed his continued enrollment.
- He appealed some grades; the school permitted retakes and issued warnings that further Cs could lead to dismissal; he signed a waiver acknowledging that future Cs could result in dismissal.
- In 2009–2010, after personal bereavement and clinical performance concerns, McMahon faced a fitness evaluation and temporary removal from the clinical practicum, with completion of evaluations tied to his ability to continue.
- Rutgers ultimately dismissed McMahon in 2010 for Cs in Pediatrics Anesthesia (and related policy violations), and McMahon sued in federal court asserting contract, due process, and LAD/USERRA claims; the district court granted summary judgment for Rutgers and Salmond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rutgers violated contract law governing student dismissal | McMahon argues ex post facto grading policy bound Rutgers to lenient standards | Appellees contend only current rules apply and retroactive binding is improper | No contractual violation; policies at time of conduct controlled; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether McMahon had a due process property interest and was treated arbitrarily | McMahon contends a protected property interest required more process before dismissal | McMahon received notice, warnings, retakes, and a formal appeal process; no arbitrariness shown | McMahon had a presumed property interest, but no due process violation; process satisfied |
| Whether McMahon stated a NJ LAD/USERRA discrimination/retaliation claim | Discrimination/retaliation based on military status and responses to complaints | Record shows no evidence linking dismissal to military status or retaliation; dates coincidental | LAD/USERRA claims failed; no evidence of substantial motivating factor |
Key Cases Cited
- Mittra v. Univ. of Med. and Dentistry of N.J., 719 A.2d 693 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998) (limits rigid contract review; focuses on adherence to institutional procedures)
- Napolitano v. Trustees of Princeton Univ., 453 A.2d 263 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1982) (early contract-based inquiry in academic dismissals)
- Mauriello v. Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of N.J., 781 F.2d 46 (3d Cir. 1986) (due process in academic dismissals; respect for faculty judgment)
- Board of Curators, Univ. of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978) (assumed property interest in student continued enrollment; due process framework)
- Regents of Univ. of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985) (assumed property interest; limits on overruling academic judgments)
- Sheehan v. Department of Navy, 240 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (framework for USERRA discrimination analysis)
- Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (arising in arbitration/summary judgment standards (example cited in template))