Sina Chenari v. George Washington University
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2388
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Sina Chenari, a third-year George Washington University (GWU) medical student, continued transferring answers to his NBME-administered exam answer sheet after time was called and after a proctor twice told him to stop, taking an extra ~90 seconds–2 minutes.
- Proctor and another student reported the incident; GWU’s Honor Code subcommittee and Medical Student Evaluation Committee held hearings and unanimously recommended dismissal for academic dishonesty; the Dean and Provost upheld dismissal.
- Chenari sued in federal court for breach of contract (and implied covenant) and for disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act and ADA, seeking reinstatement and damages; district court granted summary judgment to GWU.
- On appeal Chenari argued (1) GWU lacked a rational basis for dismissal (no deceit, exam was scored, alleged common practice of finishing transfers), and (2) GWU failed to accommodate his ADHD—he claims he notified administrators pre-exam but never formally requested accommodations.
- The court treated the student–university relationship as contractual and reviewed de novo the summary judgment record, giving deference to academic/honor-code decisions unless arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith.
Issues
| Issue | Chenari's Argument | GWU's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GWU breached its contract or acted in bad faith by dismissing Chenari for honor code violation | Dismissal was irrational: he did not deceive, the exam was scored, and transferring answers was common practice | Continuing to fill answers after time called despite repeated proctor instructions was a breach of academic honesty and provided a rational basis | Affirmed: dismissal had a rational basis; no evidence of bad faith or arbitrariness |
| Whether Chenari’s conduct lacked the required deception element for Honor Code violation | Lack of concealment and his conduct was open; no deceitful intent | Cheating can occur openly; he gained extra time and advantage by continuing to bubble in answers | Held for GWU: open or covert, continuing after instruction to stop constituted violation |
| Whether GWU violated Rehabilitation Act/ADA by failing to accommodate Chenari’s ADHD (notice element) | Chenari told Associate Dean in Oct 2012 of his ADHD and medication; this constituted notice | Associate Dean denies any such disclosure; GWU argues plaintiff offered no evidence of notice or formal request | Reversed re: notice: credibility conflict creates a genuine dispute of material fact (summary judgment improper on notice) |
| Whether GWU denied a reasonable accommodation (failure-to-accommodate) | Repeated notifications should obligate GWU to investigate/accommodate even without formal request | Chenari never requested accommodations; GWU had multiple avenues (referrals to counseling, Disability Services office, website) and offered assistance — plaintiff did not follow up | Held for GWU: even assuming notice, Chenari failed to request/obtain a reasonable accommodation; GWU met its obligations |
Key Cases Cited
- Alden v. Georgetown Univ., 734 A.2d 1103 (D.C. 1999) (courts defer to academic judgments; dismissal stands unless no rational basis or bad faith)
- Wright v. Howard Univ., 60 A.3d 749 (D.C. 2013) (implied covenant claims require bad faith or arbitrary conduct to overcome academic deference)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video evidence can render contrary testimony irreconcilable and justify summary judgment)
- Robinson v. Pezzat, 818 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (courts may disregard incredible testimony, but seldom dismiss uncorroborated testimony absent compelling contradictions)
- American Council of the Blind v. Paulson, 525 F.3d 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Rehabilitation Act and Title II ADA claims are similar and often interchangeable)
- Stewart v. St. Elizabeths Hosp., 589 F.3d 1305 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (elements for failure-to-accommodate claim: disability, notice, denial of reasonable accommodation)