Doe v. Wesleyan Univ.

• Docket Number: CIVIL 3:19-cv-01519 (JBA)
• Decision Date: 08 July 2022
• Parties: JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut

1

JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

CIVIL No. 3:19-cv-01519 (JBA)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

July 8, 2022

RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SPOLIATION SANCTIONS

JANET BOND ARTERTON, U.S.D.J.

Plaintiff Jane Doe, a former student, brings claims against Defendant Wesleyan University related to her expulsion from Wesleyan after she was found responsible for cheating on multiple examinations. After the Court dismissed some, but not all, of Plaintiff's claims, Defendant now moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff's remaining claims. (Mem. of L. in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Def.'s Summ. J. Mem.”) [Doc. # 235-1].) Separately, Defendant moves for sanctions against Plaintiff for the alleged spoliation of evidence related to Plaintiff's claims. (Mem. of L. in Supp. of Def.'s Renewed Mot. for Sanctions (“Def.'s Sanctions Mem.”) [Doc. # 233-1].). Plaintiff opposes both motions. (Pl.'s Mem. of L. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J (“Pl.'s Summ. J. Opp'n”) [Doc. # 234]; Pl.'s Mem. of L in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Sanctions (“Pl.'s Sanctions Opp'n”) [Doc. # 246].) For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Wesleyan's motion for summary judgment [Doc. # 235] and motion for sanctions [Doc. # 233].

I. Factual Background

A. Cheating Allegations and Investigation

Plaintiff enrolled as a first-year student at Wesleyan in the fall of 2016. (Pl.'s Loc. R. 56(a) Stmt. [Doc. # 243-31] ¶ 26.) In the summer of 2017, she took three chemistry courses taught by Professor Andrea Roberts. (Id. ¶¶ 31-32.) Like any other of Wesleyan's course offerings, Plaintiff's chemistry courses required her to acknowledge Wesleyan's prohibitions against cheating. (Id. ¶¶ 35-36.) As Professor Robert's course syllabi explained: “You will neither accept nor give ANY aid during an exam. This includes, but is not limited to electronic devices.... Any suspected violation [of] the Honor Code . . . will be swiftly brought to the attention of the Honor Board.” (Id. ¶ 36.) To facilitate instruction for these courses, Professor Roberts used Moodle, a learning management system that can be accessed through internet-connected devices for task assignments, quizzes, content delivery, and communication. (Id. ¶¶ 16-17.) Professor Roberts also employed a teaching assistant (“TA”), Paul Brauchle, to aid her instruction in Plaintiff's summer courses. (Id. ¶ 37.) On examination days, Mr. Brauchle would proctor examinations, moving at thirty-minute intervals between different testing rooms to assist students with potential questions, but he did not “sit in the room with []student[s] and monitor whether or not they were cheating for the entire test.” (Brauchle Dep., Def.'s Ex. 9 [Doc. # 235-11] at 67-69.)

As an accommodation for her disability, Plaintiff was placed in a distraction-reduced testing room for many of her examinations, where she took the test either alone or with a small number of other students. (Pl.'s Stmt. ¶¶ 29, 39, 41.) During one examination, Mr. Brauchle noticed another student using a cell phone in the same testing room as Plaintiff and he reported this observation to Professor Roberts. (Id. ¶ 49.) While Professor Roberts investigated that student's Moodle log, she also looked at Plaintiff's Moodle log activity for that course, which revealed evidence of Plaintiff's use of the Moodle site during the exam to access “materials that would help her on the final exam.” (Roberts Dep., Def.'s Ex. 8 [Doc. # 235-10] at 66:22-24, 68:16-18.) Professor Roberts also found evidence that Plaintiff accessed Moodle during other examinations. (See Def.'s Ex. 13 [Doc. # 235-15].)

On August 6, 2017, Professor Roberts notified both Plaintiff and Lorna Scott, the Administrative Assistant to Wesleyan's Vice President of Student Affairs, of her belief that Plaintiff had accessed Moodle during various examinations. (Pl.'s Stmt. ¶ 54.) Professor Roberts also informed Professor Westmoreland, the chairperson of the chemistry department, that she found suspicious activity on a student's Moodle Log but did not disclose the student's name. (Roberts Dep., Pl.'s Ex. 4 [Doc. # 243-5] at 225). In response to Professor Roberts's allegations, Wesleyan initiated an investigation into Plaintiff's alleged misconduct. Wesleyan's information technology services department (“ITS”) confirmed that the Moodle logs reflected “active and engaged” access of the Moodle site using an internet-connected cell phone logged in with Plaintiff's Wesleyan internet credentials during one of the exams in question. (Pl.'s Stmt. ¶ 54.)

B. Hearings Before the Wesleyan Honor Board

On August 9, 2017, Wesleyan formally charged Plaintiff with violations of the Honor Code. (Aug. 9, 2017 Notification Letter, Def.'s Ex. 14 [Doc. # 245-16].) Specifically, Plaintiff was accused of violating Subsection 1 of the Honor Code, which prohibits “[t]he attempt to give or obtain assistance in a formal academic exercise without due acknowledgement .... [including but] not limited to[] cheating during an exam”; and Subsection 5, which prohibits “[d]eception concerning adherence to the conditions set by the instructor for a formal academic exercise.” (Id.) As a result of these allegations of academic misconduct, Plaintiff was referred to the Honor Board, a quasi-judicial entity that would determine whether she was responsible for the charged conduct. (Id.) According to the Wesleyan Student Handbook, “[t]he voting membership of the Honor Board Shall consist of four undergraduate students, each serving a two-year term.” (Student Handbook, Def.'s Ex. 1 [Doc. # 235-3] at 3.)

In preparation for her hearing, Plaintiff gathered statements from student witnesses who were in the exam room with her at a time of her alleged cheating. These students stated that they had a clear view of Plaintiff, would have been able to see her access her cell phone, but they did not see her access her cell phone during the exam. (Pl.'s Ex. 27 [Doc. # 243-28].) Plaintiff also reached out to her TA who had been making unannounced visits to Plaintiff's classroom as she took the exams. (Brauchle Dep. at 24; Def.'s Ex. 37 [Doc. # 238-6].) The TA declined to get involved. (Pl.'s Ex. 6 [Doc. # 243] at 13; Doe Dep., Def.'s Ex. 2 [Doc. # 235-4] at 74:17-20.) Plaintiff then asked Lorna Scott, who also served as the Honor Board's Clerk, about whether it is true what Brauchle told her-that TA's “do not get involved” in Honor Board matters. (Pl.'s Ex. 6 at 13.) Plaintiff also asked if there were “any other processes by which I can get this information.” (Id.) Ms. Scott told Plaintiff that it was “up to you and him” with respect to her questions for him and that “[t]here is no particular policy about gathering information and witnesses.” (Id. at 17.) Ms. Scott later testified by deposition that she interpretated Plaintiff's question as asking about Plaintiff's ability to request statements from witnesses, to which her answer was that it was up to Plaintiff and that witness's discretion. (Scott Dep., Def.'s Ex. 44 [Doc. # 238-13] at 59:20-25, 60: 2-3.) Wesleyan's Student Handbook states that the Honor Board “may require the cooperation of any member of the community in furnishing testimony or evidence directly related to the adjudication of a case.” (Student Handbook at 4.) Notably, Plaintiff never requested the Board to require the TA's testimony. (Scott Dep. at 192:10-12.)

Plaintiff's Honor Board hearing took place on August 16, 2017, before a panel of three students (rather than the four specified by the Student Handbook) and one administrator. (First Honor Bd. Hr'g Tr., Def.'s Ex. 16 [Doc. # 235-18].) After hearing the evidence, the Honor Board concluded that Plaintiff had cheated on five exams she took as part of two of her summer chemistry courses, basing its findings primarily on the Moodle logs presented. (Aug. 21, 2017 Decision Letter, Def.'s Ex. 19 [Doc. # 235-21] at 2.) On August 21, 2017, Wesleyan notified Plaintiff of its decision to dismiss her as a result of these findings. (Id.)

After Plaintiff received the decision from the Honor Board, she retained BDO Consulting to conduct an independent forensic analysis of her electronic devices, Wesleyan's documentation, and AT&T cellular data usage logs. (Sept. 4, 2017 Letter, Def.'s Ex. 20 [Doc. # 235-22].) Gary Pate, BDO's Consulting Director, found that the Moodle logs were inaccurate at least as to the August 4 exam because they showed Plaintiff accessing Moodle when neither the wi-fi logs nor the data usage logs from her cell phone reflected a connection from Plaintiff's cell phone to the internet. (Id. at 6-8.)

Based on this new evidence, Plaintiff requested an appeal of the hearing decision. (Id.) Wesleyan did not grant an appeal, but instead remanded the case to the Honor Board so that they could review the new evidence that Plaintiff wished to present. (Sept. 7, 2017 Letter, Def.'s Ex. 22 [Doc. # 236-2].) In response to Plaintiff's inquiry as to whether she had been “provided with the entire universe of evidence to be presented against me at the hearing,” Lorna Scott informed Plaintiff that she “should have everything that was presented -everything in your file.” (Pl.'s Ex. 6 at 14.) However, at the second hearing, members of Wesleyan's ITS team testified to an experiment they had conducted earlier that day which purportedly demonstrated that Plaintiff still could have cheated as alleged. (Second Hr'g Tr. [Doc. # 236-3] at 9-13; Pl.'s Stmt. ¶ 115 (explaining the significance of the experiment).) Plaintiff had never been informed that any such experiment would take place. The Honor Board Chairperson for Plaintiff's hearing, Gabriel Kachuck testified by deposition that he did not consider this experiment to be new evidence that would necessitate...