Boehm v. University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine

• Decision Date: 18 April 1990
• Citation: 573 A.2d 575,392 Pa.Super. 502
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court
• Parties: , 60 Ed. Law Rep. 93 Cheryl BOEHM and Maria Stanik, Appellees, v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE and Edwin J. Andrews, V.M.D. and P.H.D., Appellants.

Page 575

573 A.2d 575

392 Pa.Super. 502, 60 Ed. Law Rep. 93

Cheryl BOEHM and Maria Stanik, Appellees, v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE and Edwin J. Andrews, V.M.D. and P.H.D., Appellants.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Dec. 14, 1989.

Filed April 18, 1990.

Neil J. Hamburg, Philadelphia, for appellants.

George F. Schoener, Jr., Philadelphia, for appellees.

Before BROSKY, WIEAND and JOHNSON, JJ.

WIEAND, Judge:

This is an appeal from an order preliminarily enjoining the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania from enforcing disciplinary sanctions levied against two students. After careful review, we reverse.

Cheryl Boehm and Maria Stanik were first year veterinary students at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Veterinary Medicine. Following allegations of misconduct during the taking of examinations, Boehm and Stanik were notified, in April, 1989, that charges had been brought against them for violating the Veterinary School's Code of Student Rights and Academic Integrity ("the Code"). A hearing was held before a panel of three faculty members and two students, after which Boehm and Stanik were found guilty of violating the Code by engaging in "behavior suspicious of and compatible with cheating." The hearing panel recommended probation, but the Dean of the School, Edwin J. Andrews, directed that Boehm and Stanik be suspended for a period of one year and imposed additional sanctions which were to go into effect when the students returned to classes after suspension. An appeals committee upheld the Dean's sanctions with only slight modification. These sanctions, as modified, were: (1) suspension from the Veterinary School for a period of one year; (2) upon return following suspension, probation during the balance of their matriculation; (3) a condition that during all future examinations, they were to sit apart; and (4) placement of a notation on their transcripts that they had been "found guilty of behavior suspicious of, and compatible with cheating," subject to removal mechanisms allowed by the Code. After these sanctions had been imposed, Boehm and Stanik filed a complaint in equity in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in which they sought injunctive relief. They alleged that the school's disciplinary proceedings against them had lacked fundamental fairness and failed to comport with the requirements of the Code. Following a hearing, the trial court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Boehm and Stanik. The Veterinary School and Dean Andrews filed the instant appeal.

On appeal from an order granting a preliminary injunction, the scope of review is narrow. "In determining the propriety of the entry of an order granting a preliminary injunction, the question is whether there were any apparently reasonable grounds in the record to justify its issuance." Fischer v. Department of Public Welfare, 497 Pa. 267, 270, 439 A.2d 1172, 1174 (1982) (footnote omitted). See also: Willman v. Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, 505 Pa. 263, 269, 479 A.2d 452, 454 (1984); South Fayette Township v. Commonwealth, 477 Pa. 574, 579, 385 A.2d 344, 347 (1978); Rollins Protective Services Co. v. Shaffer, 383 Pa.Super. 598, 600, 557 A.2d 413, 413-414 (1989); Crozer Chester Medical Center v. May, 352 Pa.Super. 51, 56, 506 A.2d 1377, 1379 (1986). "On an appeal from a decree granting or denying a preliminary injunction, the appellant has a very heavy burden to overcome; such a decree will not be interfered with upon appellate review in the absence of a plain abuse of discretion by the court below." Safeguard Mutual Insurance Co. v. Williams, 463 Pa. 567, 577-578, 345 A.2d 664, 670 (1975). See also: McDonald v. Noga, 393 Pa. 309, 311, 141 A.2d 842, 843 (1958); Broad & Locust Assoc. v. Locust-Broad Realty Co., 318 Pa.Super. 38, 43, 464 A.2d 506, 508 (1983). "Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied will we interfere with the decision of the Chancellor." Roberts v. Board of Directors of the School District of Scranton, 462 Pa. 464, 469, 341 A.2d 475, 478 (1975). See also: Mazzie v. Commonwealth, 495 Pa. 128, 133, 432 A.2d 985, 988 (1981); Bell v. Thornburgh, 491 Pa. 263, 267, 420 A.2d 443, 445 (1980); Herman v. Dixon, 393 Pa. 33, 36, 141 A.2d 576, 577 (1958).

Nevertheless, the essential prerequisites for issuing a preliminary injunction must be met. These have been identified by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as follows:

"first, that it is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm which could not be compensated by damages; second, that greater injury would result by refusing it than by granting it; and third, that it properly restores the parties to their status as it existed immediately prior to the alleged wrongful conduct. Alabama Binder & Chemical Corp. v. Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corp. [410 Pa. 214, 189 A.2d 180] supra. Even more essential, however, is the determination that the activity sought to be restrained is actionable, and that the injunction issued is reasonably suited to abate such activity. And unless the plaintiff's right is clear and the wrong is manifest, a preliminary injunction will not generally be awarded: Keystone Guild, Inc. v. Pappas, 399 Pa. 46, 159 A.2d 681 (1960), and Herman v. Dixon, 393 Pa. 33, 141 A.2d 576 (1958)."

John G. Bryant Co., Inc. v. Sling Testing & Repair, Inc., 471 Pa. 1, 7, 369 A.2d 1164, 1167 (1977), quoting Albee Homes, Inc. v. Caddie Homes, Inc., 417 Pa. 177, 181, 207 A.2d 768, 770-771 (1965). See also: Valley Forge Historical Society v. Washington Memorial Chapel, 493 Pa. 491, 500, 426 A.2d 1123, 1128 (1981); New Castle Orthopedic Assoc. v. Burns, 481 Pa. 460, 464, 392 A.2d 1383, 1385 (1978); Bell Fuel Corp. v. Cattolico, 375 Pa.Super. 238, 245, 544 A.2d 450, 453 (1988).

We have diligently examined the record in search of an apparently reasonable basis on which a court could interfere with the right of a private school ¹ to impose sanctions for conduct found to be "compatible with cheating" and have found none. We are constrained to conclude, therefore, that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to enjoin the school preliminarily from putting into effect the suspension imposed by the Dean.

The students contended in the trial court that improprieties in the school's disciplinary proceedings rendered the findings of a hearing panel and the punishment meted out by the Dean fundamentally flawed. Broadly speaking, the law is that the

right of a student to attend a public or private college or university is subject to the condition that he comply with its scholastic and disciplinary requirements, and the proper college authorities may in the exercise of a broad discretion formulate and enforce reasonable rules and regulations in both respects. The courts will not interfere in the absence of an abuse of such discretion.

14 C.J.S. Colleges and Universities § 26, at 1360 (1939). See also: 15A Am.Jur.2d Colleges and Universities §§ 23 & 26-27 (1976); Annot., Right Of Student To Hearing On Charges Before Suspension Or Expulsion From Educational Institution, 58 A.L.R.2d 903 (1958).

With regard to disciplinary sanctions at state owned colleges and universities, the law is fairly well established. In the landmark decision of Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir.1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 930, 82 S.Ct. 368, 7 L.Ed.2d 193 (1961), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held "that due process requires notice and some opportunity for hearing before a student at a tax-supported college is expelled for misconduct." Id. at 158.

The notice should contain a statement of the specific charges and grounds which, if proven, would justify expulsion under the regulations of the Board of Education. The nature of the hearing should vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular case. The case before us requires something more than an informal interview with an administrative authority of the college. By its nature, a charge of misconduct, as opposed to a failure to meet the scholastic standards of the college, depends upon a collection of the facts concerning the charged misconduct, easily colored by the point of view of the witnesses. In such circumstances, a hearing which gives the Board or the administrative authorities of the college an opportunity to hear both sides in considerable detail is best suited to protect the rights of all involved. This is not to imply that a full-dress judicial hearing, with the right to cross-examine witnesses, is required. Such a hearing, with the attending publicity and disturbance of college activities, might be detrimental to the college's educational atmosphere and impractical to carry out. Nevertheless, the rudiments of an adversary proceeding may be preserved without encroaching upon the interests of the college. In the instant case, the student should be given the names of the witnesses against him and an oral or written report on the facts to which each witness testifies. He should also be given the opportunity to present to the Board, or at least to an administrative official of the college, his own defense against the charges and to produce either oral testimony or written affidavits of witnesses in his behalf. If the hearing is not before the Board directly, the results and findings of the hearing should be presented in a report open to the student's inspection. If these rudimentary elements of fair play are followed in a case of misconduct of this particular type, we feel that the requirements of due process of law will have been fulfilled.

Id. at 158-159. See: Gorman v. University of Rhode Island, 837 F.2d 7 (1st Cir.1988); Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 415 F.2d 1077 (8th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 965, 90 S.Ct. 2169, 26 L.Ed.2d 548 (1970); Jaska v. Regents of...