Wards Corner Beauty Academy v. National Accrediting Commission of Career Arts & Sciences
2:16-cv-00639
E.D. Va.Nov 24, 2017Background
- Wards Corner Beauty Academy (plaintiff) had its barbering and cosmetology accreditation withdrawn by NACCAS (defendant) after review of self-reported graduation-rate data and supporting records for 2013–2014.
- NACCAS notified Wards Corner it failed to meet the minimum graduation rate, gave a remediation period (initially 12 months, later extended), and allowed one supplemental submission; after a February 2016 supplement NACCAS withdrew accreditation and denied relief on appeal.
- Wards Corner sued, alleging NACCAS violated the common-law right to fair procedure, primarily by using an impartial decisionmaker (claiming a conflict/pecuniary interest); both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Under Fourth Circuit precedent in Prof’l Massage, judicial review of accreditor decisions is highly deferential and confined to whether the decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, an abuse of discretion, or unsupported by substantial evidence, except courts may probe bias with a strong showing.
- The district court granted NACCAS summary judgment on all issues except bias (remediation period, notice, appeal adequacy, and substantive basis were resolved against Wards Corner); it preserved for trial Wards Corner’s claim that an interested decisionmaker deprived it of an impartial tribunal.
- The court ruled monetary-damages evidence is not permitted at the upcoming hearing; the available remedy for a proven procedural bias is remand for a de novo review by an unbiased commission, and Wards Corner has no right to a jury on the bias claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was remediation period inadequate? | Wards Corner: its program length warranted longer remediation (18 months) or more opportunity to demonstrate compliance. | NACCAS: remediation and extensions provided sufficient, discretionary time; no minimum due under standards. | Held for NACCAS: remediation and extensions satisfied procedural fairness. |
| Was withdrawal predicated on failure to maintain accurate records / improper notice of grounds? | Wards Corner: NACCAS actually revoked for record-keeping reasons without adequate prior notice. | NACCAS: withdrawal was supported by multiple cited compliance failures including graduation rate and verifiable records. | Held for NACCAS: record shows multiple noticed grounds, including graduation-rate noncompliance. |
| Were appeal procedures adequate / did Wards Corner get full administrative review? | Wards Corner: appellate panel should have considered new evidence and process was inadequate. | NACCAS: appeals conformed to its procedures; appellate review need not consider novel evidence presented first on appeal. | Held for NACCAS: appeals were consistent with its process and adequate under Prof’l Massage. |
| Was there denial of impartial decisionmaker (bias/conflict) requiring relief and monetary damages? | Wards Corner: an adjudicator had a pecuniary interest or disqualifying conflict; if proven, damages (lost revenues) and relief are appropriate. | NACCAS: even if a conflict existed, plaintiff must prove causation; proper remedy is remand, not damages or a jury trial. | Held: disputed factual issue on bias survives summary judgment; court will hold a bench trial/hearing limited to whether bias existed. If bias is proven, remedy is remand (equitable relief); monetary damages are not recoverable now and no jury trial right attaches. |
Key Cases Cited
- Prof'l Massage Training Ctr., Inc. v. Accreditation All. of Career Sch. & Colleges, 781 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2015) (sets deferential standard for judicial review of accrediting agencies and recognizes common-law duty of fair procedure)
- Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) (damages for procedural due-process violations require proof of injury caused by the procedural deprivation)
- Burt v. Abel, 585 F.2d 613 (4th Cir. 1978) (extends Carey to hold procedural-only deprivations generally require proof of independent compensable harm for more than nominal damages)
- Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S. Ct. 1899 (2016) (participation of an adjudicator with a pecuniary interest presents a due-process defect not amenable to harmless-error review)
- Dargis v. Sheahan, 526 F.3d 981 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirmed remand for a corrective hearing rather than a damages trial where procedural due-process violations were found)
- Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412 (1987) (articulates two-part Seventh Amendment test comparing causes and remedies to historical analogs to determine jury-trial rights)