Castelino v. Rose-Hulman Inst. of Tech., 19-1905

• Decision Date: 03 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. 19-1905,19-1905
• Citation: 999 F.3d 1031
• Parties: Justin CASTELINO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

999 F.3d 1031

Justin CASTELINO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-1905

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted^* September 29, 2020

Decided June 3, 2021

Justin Philip Castelino, Stamford, CT, Pro Se.

Holly Ann Reedy, Attorney, Wilkinson, Goeller, Modesitt, Wilkinson & Drummy, Terre Haute, IN, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before Rovner, Brennan, and Scudder, Circuit Judges.

Rovner, Circuit Judge.

Justin Castelino was suspended from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology for a semester for academic misconduct. When he applied to return the following spring, Rose-Hulman denied his requests for readmission and also informed him that he would not be permitted to reapply in the future. Castelino then sued Rose-Hulman, alleging that his suspension violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("ADA"), and also asserting claims against Rose-Hulman for breach of contract, defamation, false advertising, invasion of privacy, and malice. The district court entered summary judgment for Rose-Hulman on all counts and also granted Rose-Hulman's motion for sanctions based on Castelino's failure to comply with a scheduling order. Castelino appeals, but we affirm.

I.

We note at the outset that Castelino's brief falls short of compliance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 in many respects.¹ Thus, although we construe the facts in the light most favorable to Castelino, we rely for the details on Rose-Hulman's brief and the record, which more clearly, objectively, and accurately set forth the factual background. In the fall of 2012, Castelino enrolled as a transfer student at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, a private engineering, mathematics, and science college in Terre Haute, Indiana. As a student at Rose-Hulman, Castelino received certain accommodations based on what he identifies in his brief on appeal as a "documented auditory processing disorder." Specifically, Castelino provided Rose-Hulman with a neuropsychological report diagnosing him with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD") and a learning disorder. Rose-Hulman granted Castelino an accommodation that allowed him to receive 100% extended time on tests and quizzes, which he was allowed to take in a distraction-free environment.

While at Rose-Hulman, Castelino was reprimanded several times for academic misconduct. In 2013, one of Castelino's professors, Dr. James Hanson, saw him copying from another student's homework. Dr. Hanson issued a letter of academic misconduct following the incident. Castelino appealed the letter to the college's Rules and Discipline Committee, but the Committee allowed the letter to remain in Castelino's file. The following year Castelino received another letter of academic misconduct. This time he and another student submitted duplicate work in a course taught by Dr. Jeremy Chapman. The head of the Civil Engineering Department, Dr. Kevin Sutterer, met with Castelino about the incident. After hearing his explanation, Dr. Sutterer decided it was possible that Castelino had submitted the duplicate work as the result of a misunderstanding. Thus, although the Civil Engineering Department ordinarily requests a student's suspension after a second incident of academic misconduct, Dr. Sutterer did not refer Castelino for suspension. Instead, Dr. Sutterer warned Castelino that he risked dismissal from Rose-Hulman if any further incidents of academic misconduct occurred.

The third and final incident of alleged academic misconduct occurred in April 2015. At that time, Castelino was taking Dr. Chapman's course again after having dropped it the previous year. In the interim, Dr. Chapman had changed his policy regarding the use of notes on exams. Although he had previously allowed students to use typed notes when taking exams, he began requiring hand-written notes after discovering students were often simply using course slides that they had cut and pasted. Dr. Chapman announced this policy at the beginning of the quarter, and then reminded students of the policy on Thursday, April 2 in anticipation of an exam the next day.

After class, Castelino asked if he could use his typed notes from the previous semester and assured Dr. Chapman that they were not cut and pasted course slides. After Dr. Chapman rejected that proposal, Castelino met with the Director of Disability Services, Karen DeGrange, and Dr. Sutterer about the situation. He explained that his poor handwriting would make the hand-written note requirement too difficult for him. DeGrange then contacted the campus Learning Center to ask if a tutor could transcribe Castelino's notes for him.

Although there was a tutor in the Learning Center available to transcribe Castelino's notes then, by the time Castelino arrived there close to 5 p.m., there was no one there to transcribe for him. After Castelino advised DeGrange that he could not get a tutor to transcribe his notes, she and Dr. Sutterer met and concluded that Castelino would be allowed to use his typed notes for this one exam.

Castelino took his exam in the Learning Center, and when he turned in his notes afterward (as all students are required to do), it came to light that they contained twenty-six cut and pasted course slides. This prompted Dr. Chapman to write a letter of academic misconduct explaining that by using the course slides with his notes, Castelino had both violated Dr. Chapman's explicit instructions as well as lied to Dr. Chapman, DeGrange, and Sutterer by claiming that his typed notes did not contain cut and pasted slides. Dr. Chapman also noted that the letter was the second of its kind in his course based on Castelino's unethical conduct.

Because this was Castelino's third documented case of academic misconduct, the Dean of Students, Pete Gustafson, forwarded it to the Rules and Discipline Committee for review. The Rules and Discipline Committee met on May 13, 2015 to consider the allegations of academic misconduct against Castelino. He claimed at the hearing that he had never told Dr. Chapman that his notes did not contain any cut and pasted course slides, only that his notes were not "just" cut and pasted slides. Castelino's fiancée, who had been waiting for him outside the classroom when he spoke to Dr. Chapman, also testified. When Dr. Chapman asked her whether she had overheard Castelino tell him that "nothing was copy-and-pasted," she said "yeah" and explained that she had heard him ask to use his notecard from the previous year because it "wasn't just copy and paste."

Ultimately the Rules and Discipline Committee concluded that Castelino was guilty of repeated acts of academic misconduct. He was suspended for one quarter, after which he could apply for readmission. The committee's suspension decision was upheld on Castelino's appeal to the full faculty. As part of that process, Castelino met with the President of Rose-Hulman, James Conwell, to discuss the appeal procedures. Dr. Conwell reported that during that meeting Castelino yelled and accused him of unfairly configuring the disciplinary hearing. After asking Castelino to calm down, Dr. Conwell had to ask him to leave and not return in-person to his office.

Castelino applied for readmission multiple times. The readmission process starts with a written petition to the Dean of Students, Erik Hayes, who submits a recommendation to the Admissions and Standing Committee. That Committee meets with the student to consider his readmission request and determine whether he can be a successful member of the Rose-Hulman community. Castelino did not apply for readmission when he first became eligible in the winter quarter 2015–2016, but he did apply in January 2016. In his letter to the Admissions and Standing Committee, Dean Hayes did not recommend readmission. He based his recommendation on Castelino's failure to accept responsibility for his actions as well as his long history of behavioral issues while at Rose-Hulman. These incidents ranged from altercations and rude conduct on campus to complaints by female students that he was taking their photographs without permission.

At the hearing itself, Castelino was unable to say what courses he would be taking if readmitted, despite the fact that classes began the following day. The Committee denied Castelino's readmission request (along with three other students requesting readmission that quarter), both because of his failure to accept responsibility for his actions and because there was no academic benefit for him to start that semester instead of the next.

Castelino then applied for readmission and was rejected again in June 2016. While Castelino was suspended, the Committee had become aware that he had been arrested the previous year in Connecticut for breach of peace, cultivation, possession, and sale of marijuana, as well as operation of a drug factory and possession of a hallucinogen. At his hearing, Castelino provided a number of conflicting explanations for the news article describing his arrest, ranging from the claim that his fiancée had "stuff" on her to assertions that the article was part of a cover-up for the fact that he was a confidential informant. The Committee again rejected Castelino's request for readmission.

In March 2017, Castelino sued Rose-Hulman in federal court, alleging disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the ADA as well as state-law claims for breach of contract, defamation, false advertising, invasion of privacy, and harassment. He later amended his complaint, alleging malice and requesting punitive damages.

In August, the case was referred to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference. The settlement conference order required Castelino to serve an updated settlement demand fourteen days prior to the conference, and for the parties to email the court a confidential settlement statement three days before the conference. Despite a reminder e-mail from Rose-Hulman, Castelino failed to...