Walker v. President & Fellows of Harvard College
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19164
1st Cir.2016Background
- Megon Walker, an HLS student and JOLT journal author, submitted a draft Note in Feb 2009 that JOLT senior staff placed into the citation-checking ("subciting") process.
- JOLT editors discovered extensive unattributed material in Walker’s draft and referred the matter to Harvard Law School's Administrative Board; Dean Cosgrove made the referral.
- The Board held a hearing, found plagiarism in violation of the HLS Handbook of Academic Policies, issued a formal reprimand that was placed on Walker’s transcript, and the notation led at least one employer to rescind a job offer.
- Walker sued in Massachusetts state court (diversity jurisdiction) asserting, among other claims, breach of contract (Count I and II) based on the Handbook and defamation (Count IV) based on the transcript notation; she appealed summary judgment dismissing Counts I and IV.
- The legal question primarily centers on whether the Handbook’s plagiarism policy (covering "all work submitted") reasonably was understood to apply to Walker’s draft submitted for JOLT subciting, and whether the transcript entry supported a defamation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "all work submitted" in the HLS plagiarism policy reasonably excludes an incomplete draft turned in for JOLT subciting (breach of contract Count I) | Walker: "Submit" means surrendering final work; her February draft was incomplete and she reasonably expected to continue revising, so policy shouldn't apply | Harvard: Policy covers all work submitted, draft or final; reasonable students would expect the policy to apply once work is turned in for the exercise | Court: Affirmed for Harvard — plain meaning of "all work submitted" covers the draft; no reasonable expectation to the contrary |
| Whether including the Board's reprimand on Walker's transcript gives rise to defamation (Count IV) | Walker: Transcript notation was defamatory and caused harm (rescinded offer) | Harvard: Transcript entry reflected the Board's sanctioned finding under the Handbook; no actionable defamation once breach claim fails | Court: Affirmed for Harvard — dismissal upheld; failure on contract claim undercuts defamation claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Schaer v. Brandeis Univ., 735 N.E.2d 373 (Mass. 2000) (reasonable-expectation standard for student handbook as contract)
- Cloud v. Trs. of Boston Univ., 720 F.2d 721 (1st Cir. 1983) (student handbook interpreted as contract terms)
- Lyons v. Salve Regina Coll., 565 F.2d 200 (1st Cir. 1977) (reasonable-expectation analysis; plain meaning of handbook terms)
- Mangla v. Brown Univ., 135 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 1998) (students cannot rely on contrary oral statements by faculty when catalog governs)