Jones v. Board of Governors of University of North Carolina, 83-1121
| Citation | 704 F.2d 713 |
| Decision Date | 01 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1121,83-1121 |
| Parties | 10 Ed. Law Rep. 482 Nancy JONES, Appellee, v. The BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF the UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA and its constituent institution The University of North Carolina at Charlotte; E.K. Fretwell, Jr., Chancellor of UNCC; James H. Werntz, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs of UNCC; and Louise Schlachter, Dean of School of Nursing of UNCC, Appellants. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
Thomas J. Ziko, Associate Atty. Gen., Raleigh, N.C. (Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth C. Bunting, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, N.C., on brief), for appellants.
John T. Nockleby, Charlotte, N.C. (John W. Gresham, Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wallas, Adkins & Fuller, P.A., Charlotte, N.C., on brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte (the University or UNCC) appeals from a preliminary injunction issued by the district court that ordered the reinstatement of plaintiff Nancy Jones as a student in the UNCC College of Nursing pending resolution on the merits of her due process challenge to disciplinary action taken against her by the University. Finding that injunctive relief was appropriate on the facts presented, we affirm the order of the district court. 557 F.Supp. 263.
The undisputed facts, in general summary, are as follows.
Nancy Jones has been enrolled as a student in the UNCC College of Nursing at all times relevant to this appeal. The incident from which this action arose occurred in October 1982, when Jones was alleged to have cheated on a final examination by procuring answers to two questions from a professor, changing her paper, and turning it in. Five days later, Jones was informed by the Dean of the Nursing School that she had been accused of cheating and that she could either accept a failing grade in the course or be tried before a University Student Court comprised of three students. Jones opted for a hearing before the Student Court, where she was found guilty of "academic dishonesty."
Pursuant to University regulations, Jones appealed the decision of the Student Court to the UNCC Chancellor, and requested a new hearing before a Chancellor's Hearing Panel comprised of three University faculty members. The Chancellor determined--and the parties on appeal evidently are in accord--that irregularities in the Student Court hearing made that proceeding fatally defective. Accordingly, the Chancellor requested the Hearing Panel to conduct another hearing at which both sides could present evidence on the issue of guilt. After hearing evidence for approximately eight hours, and deliberating for twenty minutes, the Hearing Panel made and reported to the Chancellor a determination that Jones was "not guilty" of the cheating charge.
The University Counsel then filed an objection with the Chancellor to this determination by the Hearing Panel. The Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs, upon delegation from the Chancellor, reviewed the transcript of the proceedings before the Hearing Panel, as well as memoranda submitted by counsel, and reached a contrary determination that Jones was guilty of the charge. He therefore adopted the sanction recommended originally by the Student Court: that Jones be given a failing grade for the course and be placed on disciplinary probation for one semester. As a consequence, the University cancelled Jones's registration in the College of Nursing for the spring 1983 semester, because a passing grade in the course at issue was a prerequisite to all other courses in the College.
Jones then filed suit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 in federal district court, alleging that the University's handling of her case had violated her rights to procedural due process. Pending resolution of this suit on the merits, the district court granted Jones's motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered that she be reinstated as a student in good standing in the College of Nursing. On appeal, the University challenges the issuance of a preliminary injunction as an abuse of the district court's discretion.
The standards by which we evaluate the propriety of this preliminary injunction are basically those enunciated in Blackwelder Furniture Co. v. Seilig Manufacturing Co., 550 F.2d 189 (4th Cir.1977). The question of whether a preliminary injunction should issue turns upon assessment of (1) plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the likelihood that plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury without an injunction, (3) the likely injury that defendant will sustain upon issuance of an injunction, and (4) the public interest. See also Fort Sumter Tours, Inc. v. Andrus, 564 F.2d 1119, 1124 (4th Cir.1977). If the balance of hardships tips decidedly in the plaintiff's favor, an injunction preserving the status quo should issue "if, at least, grave or serious questions are presented." North Carolina State Ports Authority v. Dart Containerline Co., 592 F.2d 749, 750 (4th Cir.1979).
In applying these factors to review a preliminary injunction issued in the unique context of academic disciplinary procedures, we emphasize at the outset our understanding that federal courts must accord great deference to the administration of those procedures by state educational institutions. See Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 326, 95 S.Ct. 992, 1003, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975). The federal judicial power, in cases of this kind, does not run to the imposition of some abstract level of procedural regularity upon academic disciplinary processes but only to ensuring "rudimentary precautions against unfair or mistaken findings of misconduct and arbitrary exclusion from school." Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 581, 95 S.Ct. 729, 739, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975).
With this substantive orientation in mind, we start by noting that the balance of hardships presented here weighs heavily in favor of plaintiff Jones. As the district court concluded, without a preliminary injunction Jones will obviously suffer irreparable injury: she will be barred from taking courses during the spring semester, delaying the time at which her ability to work as a nurse will come to fruition; she will have a gap in her education which s...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason Univ.
... ... RECTOR AND VISITORS OF GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:15CV209. United ... 1692 ). Plaintiff suggests that Jones v. Bd. of Governors of the Univ. of N.C., 704 ... hearing officer bias (or bias by a board member) based on factors other than the hearing ... ...
-
Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. v. Caperton
... ... 2302, 101 L.Ed.2d 123 (1988); Patsy v. Board of Regents of Florida, 457 U.S. 496, 102 S.Ct ... See, e.g., Jones v. Board of Governors of Univ. of N.C., 704 F.2d ... ...
-
Cobb v. Rector, Visitors, University of Virginia
... ... at 1455 (citing Board of Curators of University of Missouri v ... In Jones v. Bd. of Governors of Univ. of North Carolina, ... ...
-
Boehm v. University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine
... ... Board of Directors of the School District of Scranton, ... University of South Carolina, 341 F.Supp. 226 (D.S.C.1971), aff'd, 457 F.2d ... 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975); Jones v. Snead, 431 F.2d 1115 (8th Cir.1970); Wasson ... Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina, 557 F.Supp ... ...