Sung Park v. Indiana University School of Dentistry, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18380

Park enrolled in Indiana University School of Dentistry in 2006 and, after a troublesome first and second year, was dismissed from the program.
During year two, Park failed a remediation exam, was late to and left a remediation exam, and was placed on academic probation twice, eventually repeating her second year.
Park recommenced in 2009; performance improved but she was reprimanded for breaching confidentiality and faced other non-disciplinary findings.
She was ultimately dismissed by the Faculty Professional Conduct Committee for inability to prioritize tasks and noncompliance with professional responsibilities; appeals within the university failed.
Park filed a federal complaint in November 2010 alleging federal and state law claims, which the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The Seventh Circuit reviews dismissal de novo and held sovereign immunity was waived by Indiana, so it did not affect the decision; the court addressed contract, due process, and equal protection theories.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Contract breach by failure to follow dismissal procedures	Park asserts implied contract and breach via noncompliant procedures.	IUSD followed, or did not strictly follow, internal procedures but academic judgment may override strict adherence.	Park's contract claim fails; court deferentially upholds academic decision.
Procedural due process protections in dismissal	Park had a state-created property interest in university process before dismissal.	No federal property interest in process; state process suffices not protected by federal due process.	No protectable federal property interest; procedural due process claim fails.
Substantive due process protection for career pursuit	Park has a fundamental right to pursue dentistry.	No fundamental right to follow a specific career protected by substantive due process.	No substantive due process violation; claim dismissed.
Equal protection: class-of-one discrimination	Expulsion was due to race, ancestry, national origin, or gender; class-of-one claim noted.	No plausible discriminatory intent; comparable students’ treatment does not show discrimination.	No plausible discrimination; class-of-one claim rejected.

Neel v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 435 N.E.2d 607 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (university- student relationship is contractual; courts give deference to academic judgments)
Gordon v. Purdue Univ., 862 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (educational relationship contractual; rigid contract rules yield to academic discretion)
Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 581 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2009) (implied contract between student and university exists; right to certain process)
Ross v. Creighton Univ., 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992) (institutional regulations become part of contract; governs student rights)
Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (S. Ct. 1983) (process is not an end in itself; federal due process does not create state process rights)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (S. Ct. 1972) (property interest requires more than mere entitlement to process)
Del Marcelle v. Brown Cnty. Corp., 680 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2012) (individualized state actor decisions can be rational even if imperfect)
Hlavacek v. Boyle, 665 F.3d 823 (7th Cir. 2011) (due process and public higher education decisions deference to academic judgments)