Harvey v. Palmer College of Chiropractic, 84-67

• Decision Date: 26 December 1984
• Docket Number: No. 84-67,84-67
• Citation: 363 N.W.2d 443
• Parties: 23 Ed. Law Rep. 667 Michael J. HARVEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PALMER COLLEGE OF CHIROPRACTIC, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Court of Appeals

Page 443

363 N.W.2d 443

23 Ed. Law Rep. 667

Michael J. HARVEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PALMER COLLEGE OF CHIROPRACTIC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 84-67.

Court of Appeals of Iowa.

Dec. 26, 1984.

Jack L. Brooks of Laird, Chickris & Brooks, East Moline, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert D. Lambert and Greg A. Egbers of Betty, Neuman, McMahon, Hellstrom & Bittner, Davenport, for defendant-appellee.

Heard by OXBERGER, C.J., and HAYDEN and SACKETT, JJ.

HAYDEN, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion for directed verdict and grant of defendant's motion for directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's evidence in a suit in which plaintiff claims he was wrongfully expelled from defendant college.

Plaintiff began his studies as a chiropractic student at defendant college in January, 1978. He completed all academic and clinical requirements for graduation and was scheduled to graduate on December 13, 1980.

In July, 1980, plaintiff distributed on campus copies of a newspaper entitled The Spinal Column. This particular issue contained a cartoon which criticized the relationship between the International Chiropractic Association and the Council on Chiropractic Educations. The cartoon showed no sexual organs but implied an act of oral sex; it contained the caption "ICA shows 'loyalty advocacy and support' for CCE." The cartoon was evidently referring to an ongoing debate at the school between proponents of "straight" and "mixed" chiropractics. Plaintiff did not prepare the cartoon or participate in printing the paper. He did, however, admit that he looked through the paper before distributing it and agreed with the cartoon's message.

On November 21, 1980, plaintiff was charged with violating student standards by distributing the July issue of the paper. A hearing was held before the Student Judiciary Committee (SJC) which imposed a sentence of suspension. The administration increased the penalty to expulsion. Plaintiff was found guilty of unprofessional conduct. Plaintiff brought suit and at the commencement of trial there were three theories remaining: breach of contract, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The case was tried to a jury. At the close of plaintiff's evidence the trial court directed a verdict for defendant. The trial court found, inter alia, that (1) the contract was one of adhesion and that the doctrine of reasonable expectations was applicable; (2) strict contract principles were inapplicable although they could be applied by analogy; (3) the expulsion was based on adequate evidence and was not arbitrary; (4) bias of the decisionmaker had not been demonstrated; (5) the administration had the prerogative to increase the penalty; (6) the standard of conduct in question was not unduly vague; and (7) other matters complained of were mere irregularities.

Plaintiff raises a number of issues on appeal. In view of our holding, we do not consider all of the issues raised.

Our review of this action at law is on assigned error. Iowa R.App.P. 4. In determining whether a jury question was engendered when a party seeks a directed verdict we apply the same principles as the trial court: namely, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, regardless of whether such evidence is contradicted, to determine if reasonable minds could differ on the issue. If reasonable minds could differ, the issue is for the jury. Meeker v. City of Clinton, 259 N.W.2d 822, 828 (Iowa 1977).

Although the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment is applicable only to state action, see Swanson v. Wesley College, Inc., 402 A.2d 401, 403 (Del.Super.Ct.1979), "[t]he requirements imposed by the common law on private universities parallel those imposed by the due process clause on public universities." Abbariao v. Hamline University School of Law, 258 N.W.2d 108, 113 (Minn.1977). Courts have analyzed the relationship between a student and a private university under several legal theories, including the law of contracts and the law of associations. See Tedeschi v. Wagner College, 49 N.Y.2d 652, 658-60, 404 N.E.2d 1302, 1304-06, 427 N.Y.S.2d 760, 763-64 (1980). Neither theory fits perfectly and, therefore, should not be rigidly applied. Id.; see also Slaughter v. Brigham Young University, 514 F.2d 622, 626 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 423 U.S. 898, 96 S.Ct. 202, 46 L.Ed.2d 131 (1975); Napolitano v. Trustees of Princeton University, 186 N.J.Super. 548, 565-66, 453 A.2d 263, 271-73 (1982). It is clear, however, that a private university may not expel a student arbitrarily, unreasonably, or in bad faith. Abbariao, 258 N.W.2d at 112.

Courts are reluctant to intervene in cases involving dismissal for academic deficiencies since such decisions are within the expertise of the school; but dismissals for disciplinary reasons are more closely scrutinized by the courts. Harris v. Trustees of Columbia University, 98 A.D.2d 58, 62, 470 N.Y.S.2d 368, 370 (1983).

In Tedeschi v. Wagner College, 49 N.Y.2d 652, 661, 404 N.E.2d 1302, 1306, 427 N.Y.S.2d 760, 765, a student had been suspended for both academic and nonacademic reasons. However, she was not accorded a hearing before the Student-Faculty Hearing Board as required by the published college guidelines for student suspensions and dismissals. The New York Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to belabor the legal theory most applicable to the student-college relationship. The court held:

Whether by analogy to the law of associations, on the basis of a supposed contract between university and student, or simply as a matter of essential fairness in the somewhat one-sided relationship between the institution and the individual, we hold that when a university has adopted a rule or guideline establishing the procedure to be followed in relation to suspension or expulsion that procedure must be substantially observed.

Id. at 660, 404 N.E.2d at 1306, 427 N.Y.S.2d at 764. The court reinstated the plaintiff as a student unless prior to the opening of the fall term she had been disciplined in accordance with established procedures....