An Administrator's Guide to California Private School Law

Chapter 15 – Student Discipline

procedures (unless a school’s disciplinary policy includes certain evidentiary rules), a decision to discipline must still be supported by substantial evidence. Paulin v. George Washington University School of Medicine 2142

Cyrena Paulin was enrolled in the University’s Physician Assistant degree program and had completed every requirement except for the final clinical preceptorship and final cumulative exam. Unlike her classmates, she was not allowed to select her final preceptorship group and was assigned to internal medicine. During her preceptorship, she was frequently criticized by her supervisors, even though they did not actually witness her examine or treat a patient. She was removed from the rotation one month later due to ongoing interpersonal differences. As a result, she failed her rotation and was not permitted to retake it. She was recommended for dismissal and she appealed. A subcommittee was convened to hear her appeal. The subcommittee did not contain any physicians or physician assistants and it did not speak to any of the people Paulin had requested be interviewed. It also did not review any of her progress notes. The subcommittee’s report contained multiple factual errors regarding Paulin’s academic record, such as stating that she received a “C” in certain classes that she had actually received an “A” or “B” in. The University ultimately dismissed her and Paulin sued. The University moved to dismiss Paulin’s complaint. The Court found that, although courts generally give judicial deference to a school official’s determination as to whether a student has met its academic standards, here the Court could not give that deference where Paulin had raised enough factual issues that called to question whether the University’s actions were arbitrary and capricious. Paulin had alleged enough for the Court to find that the University acted without reasonable basis when it dismissed her, and thus allowed Paulin to proceed with her lawsuit. I.F. v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund 2143 I.F. was disciplined by Tulane University after the university found that I.F. was responsible for sexual misconduct. I.F. filed for an injunction in court, which was rejected. I.F. then appealed that decision. The appellate court found, among other findings, that the trial court erred by failing to examine whether the university afforded I.F. the level of due process provided for in the university’s Student Conduct Policies and Procedures. This manual was deemed part of the terms of I.F.'s contractual relationship with the university and I.F. testified that he was never shown this manual, which would have explained to him the questions the university would have to resolve in making its disciplinary determination. The appeals court explained that I.F. should have been made aware of the standards by which his evidence would be judged. Overall, his due process rights were ill-defined and ambiguously applied and therefore were violated by the university.

An Administrator’s Guide to California Private School Law ©2019 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 518