Salinas v. Palo Alto University
5:15-cv-06336
N.D. Cal.Sep 25, 2017Background
- Salinas enrolled in Palo Alto University’s Ph.D. Clinical Psychology program (Fall 2010) and was dismissed in Spring 2013 after faculty concluded he could not be supervised effectively in clinical training.
- The Program Handbook required students to demonstrate clinical competence and the ability to accept and use supervisory feedback; deficiencies could lead to probation or dismissal.
- Dr. Amanda Fanniff (clinic supervisor) rated Salinas low on therapeutic alliance and use of supervision (including one or more “1” ratings), documenting defensiveness and difficulty accepting feedback.
- Clinic leadership (Clinical Training Committee and Student Evaluation Committee) reviewed recordings, evaluations, and Salinas’ communications, concluded his responsiveness to supervision was insufficient, and recommended dismissal; the University President accepted that recommendation.
- Salinas appealed to the Internal Appeals Committee (IAC), which reviewed materials and testimony and upheld the dismissal; he then sued alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of Cal. Educ. Code § 94367 (Leonard Law).
- The district court denied Salinas’s summary judgment motion and granted the University’s cross-motion, finding no genuine dispute that the dismissal was based on academic judgment, not arbitrary, capricious, or retaliatory conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal violated the parties’ contract / was arbitrary and capricious | Salinas: dismissal rested on Fanniff’s allegedly unwarranted low evaluation and the University failed to properly investigate; thus decision was arbitrary and capricious | University: dismissal rested on program standards and faculty academic judgment about Salinas’s inability to accept supervision; process (CTC, SEC, IAC) complied with Handbook | Court: No. University decision was based on admissible academic criteria and reasonable faculty judgment; summary judgment for defendant granted |
| Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (related to dismissal) | Salinas: faculty acted out of bias and conspired to dismiss him, depriving him of contractual protections | University: faculty acted within their academic discretion and followed Handbook procedures | Court: No genuine issue that conduct was in bad faith; claim fails |
| Violation of Cal. Educ. Code § 94367 (Leonard Law) — retaliation for protected speech | Salinas: he was punished for complaining about supervision/evaluation (protected speech) | University: dismissal was for how he complained (conduct and inability to accept supervision), not for protected speech | Court: No evidence dismissal was because of protected speech rather than legitimate academic concerns; claim fails |
| Adequacy of procedural due process under Handbook procedures | Salinas: alleges denial of opportunity to present evidence and inadequate investigation | University: provided process set forth in Handbook (CTC, SEC, appeal to IAC), invited submissions and testimony | Court: Procedures afforded were adequate under the contract/Handbook; no triable issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Paulsen v. Golden Gate Univ., 25 Cal.3d 803 (recognizes judicial non-intervention in academic decisions but permits review for arbitrary or bad-faith conduct)
- Banks v. Dominican College, 35 Cal. App.4th 1545 (student bears heavy burden to show dismissal was without any discernable rational basis)
- Regents of Univ. of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (courts must defer to academic judgment unless there is a substantial departure from accepted academic norms)
- Yu v. Univ. of La Verne, 196 Cal. App.4th 779 (Leonard Law may cover speech occurring on campus)