Henderson v. Engstrom, CIV 10-4116-RAL
| Decision Date | 12 September 2012 |
| Docket Number | CIV 10-4116-RAL |
| Parties | MARSHALL W. HENDERSON, Plaintiff, v. DR. ROYCE ENGSTROM, DR. JAMES S. KORCUSKA, DR. FRANK MAIN, DR. GRACE A. MIMS, DR. KAREN OLMSTEAD, DR. SETH OLSON, DR. TAD PERRY, LINDA REETZ, DR. TERISA REMELIUS, and THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
GRANTING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Marshall W. Henderson ("Henderson") sued Defendants Dr. Royce Engstrom, Dr. James S. Korcuska, Dr. Frank Main, Dr. Grace A. Mims, Dr. Karen Olmstead, Dr. Seth Olson, Dr. Tad Perry, Linda Reetz, Dr. Terisa Remelius, and The University of South Dakota ("USD") seeking damages for what Henderson alleges to be an improper dismissal from his graduate studies at USD. Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment, which this Court grants through this Opinion and Order.
In ruling on the motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendants, this Court must resolve genuine disputes as to any material fact in favor of Henderson. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Thus, this Court takes the facts primarily from the Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts. Doc. 75.
Henderson enrolled in the Community Agency Counseling Program at USD's Graduate School in 2003. Doc. 75 at ¶ 1. USD had granted Henderson testing and lecture accommodations due to his dyslexia. Id. at ¶ 24. In December of 2005.1 Henderson, as part of his pursuit of a degree from USD, identified Keystone Outpatient Treatment Facility ("Keystone") in Sioux Falls as his proposed internship location. Id. at ¶ 5. At that time, Henderson signed an internship plan and application form which stated that he had read and understood the separation policy—namely that early separation "requires written approval of the campus internship coordinator, the site supervisor and the program coordinator." Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.
Henderson began his internship at Keystone, but quickly realized that the internship was not the experience he sought. Doc. 75 at ¶ 11; Ex. G. Henderson's last day at Keystone was February 17, 2006. Ex. G. On February 27, 2006, Henderson accepted an internship with Heuermann Clinic in Sioux Falls. Id. Also on February 27, 2006, Defendant Dr. Seth Olson, USD's internship coordinator, emailed Henderson to schedule a required internship site visit. Id. 75 at ¶ 8. Having learned of Henderson's change in internships, Dr. Olson informed Henderson in March of 2006 that Henderson would need to contact his supervisor from Keystone as part of the separation procedure. Id. at ¶ 14. Henderson responded to Dr. Olson with a written explanation of why he left Keystone and sent a letter to the Keystone supervisor thanking him for the internship opportunity. Id. at ¶ 12-13.
On March 23, 2006, Henderson met with Dr. Olson to discuss the early separation procedures. Doc. 75 at ¶ 8. At this meeting, Dr. Olson agreed to help Henderson through theremaining separation procedures, but Henderson believes that Dr. Olson never provided the promised support. Id. Dr. Olson informed Henderson that until the early separation procedures were completed, Henderson could not receive credit for the internship at Heuermann Clinic. Id. at ¶ 11. Dr. Olson advised Henderson to stay at Heuermann Clinic and become familiar with the facility. Id. Henderson thus believed that the new internship was started with the approval of Dr. Olson. Id. Also, during the meeting on March 23, 2006, Dr. Olson reviewed a journal written by Henderson for a class requirement. Doc. 75 at ¶¶ 15-16. Henderson's journal entry for March 7, 2006 chronicled how Henderson experienced unwanted client-initiated sexual contact at Keystone on or about February, 8, 2006. Id. at ¶ 15. Henderson told Dr. Olson that he had reported the incident to Keystone in February. Id. at ¶ 17.
On April 5, 2006, Henderson met with Dr. Olson and Dr. James Korcuska to discuss his clinical performance. Doc. 75 at ¶ 20. According to the Defendants, Dr. Olson had contacted Keystone and was informed that Henderson had frequent absences and had not filed a grievance at Keystone. Id. After the April 5 meeting, Dr. Olson informed Henderson by voicemail that he would receive an "F" for his internship credits and was subject to dismissal from the graduate program for failing to follow the early separation procedures. Id. at ¶ 21.
On April 26, 2006, Henderson filed a grievance with Roberta Hakl, the Director of USD's Equal Opportunity and Diversity Office. Doc. 75 at ¶ 23. Henderson claimed in his grievance that he was being singled out for abusive treatment by Dr. Olson and Dr. Korcuska because of Henderson's disability of dyslexia, prior felony conviction, and sexual orientation. Id. at ¶ 24. Henderson believes these factors improperly contributed to Dr. Olson's grading assessment. Id.
Dr. Olson provided formal written notice to Henderson that he would receive a failing grade for the internship course on April 27, 2006. Id. at ¶ 25. Dr. Olson wrote that the failinggrade was based on Henderson's failure to follow the "letter and spirit of the policies and procedures related to early separation from an approved internship site." Id. at ¶ 26. Henderson maintains that he was being dismissed from the program because of his disability. Id.
Dr. Grace Mims then was appointed as Henderson's faculty advisor. Doc. 75 at ¶ 27. Hakl handled Henderson's allegations of discrimination, while Dr. Frank Main handled his grievance filed in relation to his grades and whether he would be dismissed from USD. Id. at ¶ 28. Dr. Main assigned Henderson temporary incompletes in the internship courses pending his evaluation. Id. at ¶ 29. On May 4, 2006, Dr. Main met with Henderson, Dr. Mims, USD's Disability Services Officer Ernetta Fox, and Rita Humphry. Id. Henderson did not receive a list of questions before the meeting, which Henderson submits violated his disability accommodation requirement. Id. at ¶¶ 31, 37. Dr. Main presented findings during the meeting, including that Keystone disputed Henderson's claim about a lack of proper supervision and clinical hours and that Keystone had no knowledge of any alleged sexual incident involving Henderson. Id. at ¶ 32. Henderson claims that Keystone lost the materials pertaining to the incident and failed to provide Henderson with a copy of the incident report. Id. at ¶ 33. At the meeting, Dr. Main asked Henderson to provide the name of the perpetrator of the alleged sexual incident, but Henderson refused to do so at the time. Later, Henderson provided Dr. Main the name of a Keystone counselor to whom Henderson had reported the incident. Id. at ¶ 33.
Also on May 4, 2006, Henderson emailed Dr. Main asking to withdraw his grievance because he had registered to retake the internship courses during the 2006 summer session. Doc. 75 at ¶ 36. Henderson says that he withdrew his grievance only after Dr. Main threatened toexpel both Henderson and his partner2 if Henderson did not withdraw the grievance. Id. Dr. Main responded to Henderson's email by notifying Henderson of a list of remedial steps required to complete the internship process.
On May 9, 2006, Henderson met with Dr. Main, Dr. Mims, and Ms. Humphrey to discuss the remedial plan. Doc. 75 at ¶ 38. Henderson was permitted to record the meeting, but was unable to do so to because of an absence of such technology in the particular room. Id. Henderson maintains that no remedial steps were provided during this meeting, and that Dr. Main again threatened to remove both Henderson and his partner from USD if Henderson did not provide additional information. Id. According to the Defendants, during this meeting, Henderson corrected his previous statement about a Keystone facilitator having informed him that the client who initiated unwanted sexual contact with Henderson had done so at other facilities; Henderson then said that it was his partner who had told him so. Ex. HH4 at 4. Henderson contests that he ever made such a statement. Dr. Main informed Henderson that discussing a client with his partner was a serious breach of professional ethics by both Henderson and his partner. Id. at 4-7.
In a letter dated June 9, 2006, Dr. Main recommended that Henderson receive failing grades for his internship courses and that faculty meet early to provide Henderson a biannual review of his status in the program. Ex. P. On July 13, 2006, Dr. Main, Dr. Mims, Dr. Olson, and Dr. Korcuska met to evaluate Henderson's performance as a counseling student. Doc. 75 at ¶ 43. Henderson was not informed of the meeting nor was he offered an opportunity to furtherdefend himself, Id. In a letter dated July 18, 2006, Dr. Korcuska informed Henderson that the faculty had decided to dismiss Henderson from USD's community counseling program, citing Henderson's "unethical and unprofessional behavior" as "inconsistent with the values and ethics of the Counseling Profession." Ex. Q. Henderson was formally dismissed from USD's Graduate School on July 19, 2006. Doc. 75 at ¶ 45. Henderson appealed his dismissal through several grievance steps at USD, but his dismissal was affirmed at all levels. Doc. 75 at ¶ 46.
Henderson filed a Complaint on August 23, 2010, alleging violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Henderson's Complaint also made state-law claims for breach of contract, harassment, and "educational malpractice," which Henderson plead as being analogous to a breach of fiduciary duty. Doc. 1. After the completion of discovery, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 64.
Under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper when "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material...
To continue reading
Request your trial