Connelly v. University of Vermont and State Agr. Col., Civ. A. No. 4224.

• Citation: 244 F. Supp. 156
• Decision Date: 14 July 1965
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 4224.
• Parties: Thomas CONNELLY, Jr. v. The UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT AND STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Vermont

244 F. Supp. 156

Thomas CONNELLY, Jr. v. The UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT AND STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.

Civ. A. No. 4224.

United States District Court D. Vermont.

July 14, 1965.

Douglas C. Pierson, Burlington, Vt., for plaintiff.

Latham & Eastman, Burlington, Vt., for defendant.

GIBSON, District Judge.

This Court has before it the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint (1) on the ground that the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution precludes federal jurisdiction (2) on the ground that the required jurisdictional amount is not present, and (3) on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In the alternative the defendant has moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, F.R.C.P. The plaintiff instituted this action praying that the defendant, University of Vermont and State Agricultural College, be ordered to reinstate the plaintiff to his former position as a student in its College of Medicine. Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332.

The substance of the plaintiff's complaint is as follows: He is a third year student at the defendant's College of Medicine, and during the months of March through June of 1964, he was enrolled in a 12-week course in pediatrics-obstetrics. He states that due to illness he missed a portion of the course from May 11 to June 7, 1964, that he made up this lost time from July 1 to July 16, 1964, and that he believes his grades prior to his illness were 82 and 87 in the pediatrics and obstetrics parts of the course respectively. He further states that on July 17, 1964 he was advised that he had failed the pediatrics-obstetrics course and could not advance to his fourth year by reason of having failed 25 per cent or more of the major courses of his third year, this under a rule of the College of Medicine. The plaintiff then petitioned the College's Committee on Advancement for permission to repeat his third year's work. His petition was denied and he was subsequently dismissed from school. He alleges that his teacher during the period from July 1 to July 16, 1964 decided early in that period "that he would not give plaintiff a passing grade in said pediatrics-obstetrics course regardless of his prior work in the Spring and regardless of the quality of his work in said make up period." The plaintiff alleges that his work was of passing quality, and that his dismissal was wrongful, improper, arbitrary, summary and unjust. He prays that it be rescinded by the mandate of this Court.

The defendant contends first that this action is in reality a suit against a state by a citizen of another state and therefore there is no federal jurisdiction. Am. XI, U.S.Const. To support this contention defendant cites Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp. (1949) 337 U.S. 682, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 93 L.Ed. 1628, State Highway Commission of Wyoming v. Utah Construction Co. (1929) 278 U.S. 194, 49 S.Ct. 104, 73 L.Ed. 262, and the recent case of Parden v. Terminal Ry. of Alabama State Docks Dept. (1964) 377 U.S. 184, 84 S.Ct. 1207, 12 L.Ed.2d 233. None of these is controlling on the issue presented here. The Larson case was an action against the War Assets Administrator as an authorized agent of the United States. No claim of immunity as a governmental corporation was involved. In the Wyoming State Highway Commission case, the State of Wyoming was one of the parties to the contract in dispute and by its terms had become obligated to make payments for work performed by the contractor. And in the Parden case, it was held that Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, could subject a state owned railroad corporation to suit in a federal court under the Federal Employee's Liability Act. The issue there was whether state ownership of a railroad removed it from the operation of the FELA. The question of whether a public corporation is immune from suit in a federal court in a diversity case under the Eleventh Amendment was not involved in that case.

Defendant's status as a public corporation is established by No. 66, Section 1 of the Laws of Vermont, 1955, which provides that the University of Vermont and the Vermont Agricultural College is a body corporate with all the rights and powers incident to corporations. In Hopkins v. Clemson Agricultural College (1911) 221 U.S. 636, 31 S.Ct. 654, 55 L. Ed. 890, the South Carolina legislature established a Board of Trustees for Clemson College and provided that the Board of Trustees should be a corporate body with the right to acquire and hold property, to sue and be sued in its corporate name, and with other related corporate powers. In a suit for damages against the College, it was held that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar a suit against Clemson for its corporate act of building for its corporate purposes a dyke which allegedly caused damage. See also Harrison Construction Co. v. Ohio Turnpike Commission, 6 Cir., 272 F.2d 337 (1959), Moss v. Calumet Paving Co., D.C., 201 F.Supp. 426 (1962), 1 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, Section 54.1, p. 305. Accordingly, the defendant is not immune from suit in this Court under the Eleventh Amendment.

The defendant's contention that the required jurisdictional amount is not present is equally unavailing. In injunction actions, the amount in controversy is the value of the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented. 1 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, Section 24, p. 111. The value of the right of a third year medical student to complete his fourth year and attain a degree which entitles him to practice the profession of medicine is worth, for purposes of determining the jurisdictional amount, in excess of $10,000.

The important question presented here is whether plaintiff's allegation that his instructor in the make up period from July 1 to July 16, 1964 failed him without proper attention to the quality of his work and on the basis of a decision made prior to the completion by plaintiff of his pediatrics-obstetrics course, states a cause of action under Rule 56, F.R.C.P. This Court is of the opinion that it does to a limited extent.

Where a medical student has been dismissed for a failure to attain a proper standard of scholarship, two questions may be involved; the first is, was the student in fact delinquent in his studies or unfit for the practice of medicine? The second question is, were the school authorities motivated by malice or bad faith in dismissing the student, or did they act arbitrarily or capriciously? In general, the first question is not a matter for judicial review. However, a student dismissal motivated by bad faith, arbitrariness or capriciousness may be actionable.

In Barnard v. Inhabitants of Shelburne, 216 Mass. 19, 102 N.E. 1095 (1913) a high school student was dismissed for failure to attain a proper standard of scholarship. The trial court submitted the case to the jury on the theory that it had power to question whether in fact the plaintiff was delinquent in his studies, and the jury found that he was not. In reversing, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts said,

So long as the school committee act in good faith their conduct in formulating and applying standards and making decisions touching this matter is not subject to review by any other tribunal. It is obvious that efficiency of instruction depends in no small degree upon this feature of our school system. It is an educational question, the final determination of which is vested by law in the public officials charged with the performance of that important duty.

The only issue for the jury, said the court, was "whether the exclusion of the plaintiff from the High School was an act of bad faith by the school committee."

This rule has been stated in a variety of ways by a number of courts. It has been said that courts do not interfere with the management of a school's internal affairs unless "there has been a manifest abuse of discretion or where the school officials' action has been arbitrary or unlawful," State ex rel. Sherman v. Hyman, 180 Tenn. 99, 171 S.W.2d 822, cert. den. 319 U.S. 748, 63 S.Ct. 1158, 87 L.Ed. 1703 (1942),...