An Administrator's Guide to California Private School Law

Chapter 15 – Student Discipline

not received a hearing, the University vacated its dismissal and initiated a hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing process, the University dismissed the student. The student claimed that she had been denied due process because she was not allowed to bring legal representation to the hearing and she was not allowed to confront witnesses at the hearing. The Court confirmed that students of private universities are not entitled to the full panoply of due process rights. It held that so long as the University substantially complied with its policies and procedures, it will not intervene. Samost v. Duke University 2140 Two students sued a private university for breach of contract, claiming that the university’s handling of their disciplinary proceedings resulting in their suspensions was flawed by numerous procedural irregularities that departed from the disciplinary process contained in the university’s handbook. Prior to filing their lawsuit, both students appealed the suspensions pursuant to the university’s appeals process, and the appeals board determined that the suspensions should be set aside, and that the students were entitled to a new disciplinary hearing with a different hearing panel. However, instead of participating in the new hearing, and availing themselves of their right to an appeal should they disagree with the outcome, the students sued the university. The court dismissed the two students’ lawsuit against the university. The court stated that the university’s handbook contemplated that procedural errors may occur and provided for a process to correct those errors by way of the appeals board. Accordingly, the court held that the university’s failure to adhere to its discipline process could not be a basis for a breach of contract claim until the students had completed all relevant discipline procedures available to them pursuant to the university’s handbook, including the right to a new hearing, and the right to appeal the new hearing panel’s decision should they disagree with the outcome.

Adherence to disciplinary procedures need not be inflexible, but should be conducted in a manner that represents basic fairness to the student. These private university cases demonstrate that processes need not be conducted perfectly to be fair, and offer helpful guidance to private schools in how to handle procedural irregularities that may arise during disciplinary proceedings. Where mistakes are made and corrected, and the fairness of the process is demonstrated by substantial compliance with fair procedures prior to taking a final action, discipline will generally be upheld. 3. T HE E VIDENCE R ELIED O N M UST S UPPORT T HE D ISCIPLINE Another factor courts use to determine the fundamental fairness of a disciplinary decision is whether the evidence relied upon is deficient so as to render the decision arbitrary or capricious. 2141 While the rules of evidence do not apply to internal disciplinary decisions, if a decision to discipline is contrary to the evidence, or the decision is not supported by the evidence, then a court may find the decision was arbitrary and capricious, and thus, not fundamentally fair. Moreover, while evidentiary rules do not apply to internal disciplinary

An Administrator’s Guide to California Private School Law ©2019 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 517