Becker v. Washington State Univ.

• Citation: 165 Wash.App. 235,274 Ed. Law Rep. 1051,266 P.3d 893
• Decision Date: 20 December 2011
• Docket Number: No. 28743–2–III.,28743–2–III.
• Parties: Cheryl BECKER, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY, Paul Whitney, in his official and individual capacity, Craig Parks, in his official and individual capacity, Jeff Joireman, in his official and individual capacity, and Howard Grimes, in his official and individual capacity, Respondents.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington

165 Wash.App. 235

266 P.3d 893

274 Ed. Law Rep. 1051

Cheryl BECKER, Appellant,

v.WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY, Paul Whitney, in his official and individual capacity, Craig Parks, in his official and individual capacity, Jeff Joireman, in his official and individual capacity, and Howard Grimes, in his official and individual capacity, Respondents.

No. 28743–2–III.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3.

Oct. 13, 2011.Publication Ordered Dec. 20, 2011.

Patricia Sue Rose, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, Robert Morrill Boggs, Attorney at Law, Yakima, WA, for Appellant.

Kathryn Marie Battuello, Attorney General of Washington, Torts Di, Seattle, WA, for Respondents.

BROWN, J.

[165 Wash.App. 240] ¶ 1 Washington State University (WSU) terminated Cheryl Becker from the experimental psychology Ph.D. program. She sued WSU, Howard Grimes, Jeff Joireman, Craig Parks, and Paul Whitney (collectively WSU), claiming multiple contract, tort, and constitutional claims. The trial court summarily dismissed her claims. On appeal, Ms. Becker contends genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether WSU (1) breached a contract, (2) made negligent misrepresentations (promissory estoppel), (3) engaged in unlawful retaliation, (4) discriminated against her based on age, and (5) violated her civil rights claims. We affirm.

FACTS

¶ 2 Ms. Becker entered WSU's Ph.D. experimental psychology program in fall 2001. She received financial assistance through a nonguaranteed part-time graduate assistantship as a Teacher's Assistant (TA) for seven of her eight semesters. Ms. Becker held a Master's Degree and was expected to complete her Ph.D. within four years. She was required to “establish and maintain a cumulative GPA [grade point average] of 3.0 or above” for continued enrollment. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 345. Ms. Becker was required to complete 72 credit hours of course work and research, preliminary examination (prelims), and a dissertation. Research involved 20 hours of related activity a week in addition to her TA work.

¶ 3 Prelims must be successfully completed before the sixth semester of graduate study so the formal dissertation process can begin. Students engaged in formal dissertation research register for Psych 800 credits. The Graduate Student Code states students have a right “[t]o be governed by clearly stated and justifiable academic procedures, rules, and regulations.” CP at 559.

¶ 4 During the 2001–2002 academic year, Paul Whitney, Chair of the Psychology Department, agreed to be her advisor. In January 2002, Ms. Becker switched to a TA position with Professor Robert Patterson. Toward the end of the semester she discussed with Professor Lisa Fournier about working on a multidisciplinary project. Professor Fournier was collaborating on the project with Kathy Beerman, a professor in the Department of Food Sciences apparently controlling the project. In May 2002, Ms. Becker received Professor Whitney's agreement for work with Professor Fournier. Ms. Becker switched to Professor Fournier as her faculty advisor. Ms. Becker received her first annual student evaluation indicating she was adjusting to the program but expressing concerns about her self-confidence.

¶ 5 Ms. Becker's third semester started in August 2002. She became dissatisfied working with Professor Fournier when advised that Professor Beerman had assigned another graduate student to work on the multidisciplinary project. Despite Professor Fournier's assurances that this change would not affect their preparation for her prelims or a dissertation project, Ms. Becker decided to abandon her work on the project because it no longer “provide[d][her] with tangible benefits.” CP at 91. She decided to switch to her third faculty advisor, Professor Jeff Joireman.

¶ 6 At the end of her fourth semester she received her second annual student evaluation from the program faculty. It partly states, “There exists some concern about your emotional involvement in events. Specifically, some faculty feel that you have difficulty moving past negative experiences.... Some faculty also expressed concern that you are now on your third advisor in two years.” CP at 355.

¶ 7 Ms. Becker's fifth semester began in August 25, 2003. She accepted funding through a TA position with Professor Joireman. Per her program requirements Ms. Becker needed to complete her prelims this semester. Professor Joireman encouraged her to get them done. In November 2003, she alerted her doctoral committee she wanted to push the examinations to February 2004 (in her sixth semester).

[165 Wash.App. 243] ¶ 8 Ms. Becker's sixth semester began in January 2004. On February 12 she requested a second time-extension to complete preparation for her prelims into the fall semester of 2004 (her seventh semester). On February 24, 2004, Professor Whitney called a meeting to discuss Ms. Becker's academic progress. Ms. Becker believed she did not have adequate time to prepare for her prelims because her TA responsibilities exceeded 20 hours a week. Ms. Becker inquired whether she was being treated differently because of her age. She refused to sign a contract devised to help her stay on track with her prelim preparation.

¶ 9 Ms. Becker's third annual faculty evaluation occurred on April 19, 2004:

[T]he faculty are very concerned about your progress and lack thereof. In fact, the majority opinion among the faculty was to terminate your assistantship.... [T]he faculty were willing to go along with [the proposed plan for your doctoral studies] ... only under the condition that a specific target date be set for completion of your prelim ballot meeting. After much discussion the faculty agreed that the meeting should occur no later than 29 October 2004, which is the last Friday in October.... This ballot meeting deadline is not negotiable, and if it is not met, the Experimental faculty will terminate your appointment effective 18 December 2004 (i.e., the day after finals week).

CP at 358. Professor Patterson gave Ms. Becker a copy of the written summary evaluation and individual faculty comments. He told her a firm deadline existed for her prelims and if she failed to complete them by the deadline she would be dropped from the program. Ms. Becker complained to WSU's Center for Human Rights, alleging age discrimination and her other concerns regarding faculty treatment.

¶ 10 Ms. Becker admits she did not do any work to prepare for her prelims during the summer or fall of 2004 because she was waiting to hear about her complaint and was “completely blocked” from doing so. CP at 825. Program Director, Craig Parks, sent her several memoranda indicating the program was expecting her to meet the nonnegotiable October 29, 2004 deadline. Ms. Becker did not directly respond. Ms. Becker's attorney wrote WSU, “Ms. Becker's principal objectives are to correct her education records and to complete ... the program.” CP at 909.

¶ 11 Ms. Becker did not take her prelims in the fall 2004 semester (her seventh semester). On October 12, 2004, Mr. Parks notified Ms. Becker in writing she would be terminated at the end of the semester because she failed to sit for her prelims in accordance with the program faculty's deadline. At the end of the fall semester, Ms. Becker received an “S” in Psych 600 and an “X” in Psych 800. On January 4, 2005, Professor Whitney notified Graduate School Dean Howard Grimes that the faculty recommended Ms. Becker be dismissed.

¶ 12 Dean Grimes wrote to Ms. Becker on January 7, 2005, notifying her of the faculty's recommendation and an opportunity to respond directly to him. They met on January 14. Dean Grimes proposed conditions for Ms. Becker's continued enrollment, preparation of a one-page synopsis of her proposed dissertation project, and identifying a doctoral committee she could work with.

¶ 13 In February 2005, Ms. Becker left the WSU campus and returned to her home. On April 14, 2005, Mr. Parks wrote to Ms. Becker, asking her to identify individual faculty to provide input for her annual student evaluation for the 2004–2005 academic year. She did not respond. Ms. Becker next received the following evaluation:

During the past year you ignored program-imposed deadlines. You have made no discernible progress in the past year on completing the preliminary examinations. You did not consult with your advisor ... on issues related to your program of study, preliminary examinations, or research plans.

Given your total lack of progress, a grade of ‘F’ was assigned for the Psych 800 credits.

CP at 362. After receiving an “F” in Psych 800, Ms. Becker's cumulative GPA was 2.21.

¶ 14 On May 12, 2005, the Graduate School issued written notice to Ms. Becker that she was being disenrolled because her cumulative GPA had fallen below the 3.0 mandatory minimum for continued enrollment and provided reinstatement information. Ms. Becker did not respond; WSU cancelled Ms. Becker's enrollment.

¶ 15 Ms. Becker sued in March 2007, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppels, age discrimination, and retaliation under chapter 49.60 RCW, the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD); age discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 6101, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (ADA) and RCW 28B.04.120; civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; negligent infliction of emotional distress; negligent misrepresentation; and defamation. WSU successfully requested summary judgment dismissal of all claims. Ms. Becker appealed.

ANALYSIS

A. Breach of Contract

¶ 16 The issue is whether the trial court erred in summarily dismissing Ms. Becker's breach of contract claim. She contends WSU breached its obligations to provide clear guidelines regarding academic expectations and procedures for evaluation.

¶ 17 We review an order of summary judgment de novo. Hisle v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 151 Wash.2d 853, 860, 93 P.3d 108 (2004). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on...