Tshudy v. Pa. State Univ.
| Decision Date | 18 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4:22-CV-01431 |
| Parties | TRISHA TSHUDY, Plaintiff, v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
TRISHA TSHUDY, Plaintiff,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant.
No. 4:22-CV-01431
United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
November 18, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Matthew W. Brann Chief United States District Judge
Trisha Tshudy is a student at Penn State Dickinson Law; the law school's Honor Committee found that she plagiarized in a final paper. As a result, Penn State revoked Tshudy's full-tuition scholarship. Tshudy, who has a documented disability, filed suit against Penn State under three causes of action. Taken as true and reviewed in the light most favorable to Tshudy, her allegations fail for a number of reasons. First, Tshudy alleges that Penn State violated due process rights that do not exist within the academic disciplinary hearing context. Second, Tshudy purports to bring a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but her Complaint fails to include a statement setting forth the theory of ADA liability under which she is proceeding leaving Penn State and this Court to guess. Third, and finally, Tshudy alleges that Penn State violated her First Amendment right to free speech when the Dickinson Law Dean e-mailed her and instructed Tshudy to refrain from making certain
statements to certain Penn State employees. For the reasons stated below, none of these claims survive Penn State's Motion to Dismiss.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Trisha Tshudy is a student at Penn State Dickinson Law (“Dickinson Law”) (an accredited law school of The Pennsylvania State University or “Penn State,” the Defendant in this case), where she received a full tuition scholarship and was granted accommodations for a documented disability.[1] Tshudy alleges that Penn State then discriminated against her when they refused to allow her to take her law school examinations remotely and required her to come to campus.[2] Taking the exams on campus, Tshudy alleges, caused her to become ill, which resulted in her submitting an incomplete final paper to Adjunct Professor James M. Gould.[3]
Upon reviewing that paper, Penn State accused Tshudy of plagiarism and of violating the law school's Honor Code this determination was allegedly made with the assistance of plagiarism-checking software called “Turnitin.”[4] Tshudy alleges that Penn State originally used a different kind of software and used Turnitin only after the first software used did not give the law school the result it wanted, i.e., it did not reveal that Tshudy plagiarized.[5] Tshudy received an “F” grade for Gould's course and subsequently attended a hearing to determine if she had violated the
Honor Code.[6] At the hearing, Penn State found against Tshudy and, a month later, her scholarship was revoked because of this finding.[7] Tshudy alleges that she did not have the opportunity to be represented by counsel at the hearing, and that she was denied access to “expert advice” regarding the plagiarism software the law school used to support their accusations.[8]
On February 16, 2022, Dean Danielle Conway of Dickinson Law sent Tshudy an e-mail informing Tshudy that her scholarship would be revoked because she was no longer in good academic standing (presumably due to the Honor Committee's finding).[9] Conway's e-mail stated that Tshudy's scholarship would not be retroactively revoked for her first three semesters (i.e., Fall 2020, Spring 2021, Fall 2021), but that it was revoked effective the Spring 2022 semester and would remain revoked for Tshudy's third year.[10] Accordingly, the e-mail advised Tshudy that she now had a tuition balance of $26,688 and was free to contact the University's Financial Aid office should she wish to apply for loans or inquire about other available assistance.[11]
Tshudy alleges that she reached out to the Dickinson Law Financial Aid office many times and was ignored, whereupon she contacted the Penn State Bursar's
Office instead.[12] The Bursar's Office told her that Dickinson Law had not followed proper procedures in revoking her scholarship, and that it could not be revoked.[13] At that point, Tshudy alleges, Dean Conway instructed Tshudy not to speak to anyone about the information she received from the Bursar's Office.[14] Tshudy does not allege that she has attempted to take out loans and/or secure alternative financing, or that she has been unable to do so.
Tshudy filed suit against Penn State on August 21, 2022, and Penn State filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 14, 2022.[15] That Motion has been fully briefed and is now ripe for disposition.[16]
II. LAW
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court dismisses a complaint, in whole or in part, if the plaintiff fails to “state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Following Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly[17] and Ashcroft v. Iqbal,[18]“[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”[19] In deciding a motion to dismiss, courts within the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit must follow three steps: (1) take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) assume the veracity of all well-pleaded factual allegations and determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.[20]
III. ANALYSIS
Tshudy's Complaint brings three causes of action against Penn State. The first cause of action alleges that Penn State's conduct during the Honor Committee Hearing violated Tshudy's right to Procedural Due Process under the United States Constitution.[21] The second cause of action alleges that Penn State violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) in failing to accommodate Tshudy's disability by requiring her to take her examinations on campus.[22] And the third cause of action alleges that Penn State retaliated against Tshudy and violated her First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution by forbidding her to discuss her situation with Penn State financial aid staff.[23]
A. Due Process Claim
Tshudy alleges that her right to procedural due process was violated at the Honor Code Hearing because she was not given counsel at the hearing, she was not
given the opportunity to cross-examine her accusers, and the evidence from the Turnitin plagiarism checker was “illegally accepted” and she was therefore “forced to confront” computer software.[24] Penn State argues that the law school was under no obligation to affirmatively provide an attorney to Tshudy, and that the hearing did not violate Tshudy's right to process on the grounds that the hearing was not conducted subject to the same rules governing formal judicial proceedings.[25]Ultimately, Penn State argues that “the alleged rights [Tshudy] claims were violated at the Honor Code Hearing simply do not exist or apply in the student disciplinary context.”[26] The Court agrees with Penn State.
Due process is a “flexible concept and the process due in any situation is to be determined by weighing: (1) the private interests at stake; (2) the governmental interests at stake; and (3) the fairness and reliability of the existing procedures and the probable value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards.”[27] “The Due Process Clause protects students during disciplinary hearings at public institutions,” but with that said, “[t]here is not a specific format that these proceedings have to follow, so long as the university provides sufficient protections to comply with due process.”[28]
Procedural due process “requires that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property
be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case,” and the type of notice and hearing “depends on the context.”[29] In the academic context, “more informal forms of notice and hearings suffice.”[30] If a university dismisses a student for academic reasons, “it need only provide an informal give-and-take between the student and the administrative body responsible for the dismissal.”[31]
In the context of due process rights for students within state universities, the Third Circuit has stated: “[C]ourts are generally ill-equipped to review subjective academic appraisals of educational institutions, and [the Supreme Court] admonished courts to permit university faculties a wide range of discretion in making judgments as to the academic performance of students.”[32] Further, “[t]he fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner” by “an impartial decisionmaker” those decisionmakers are “presumed to be impartial, and only evidence of ‘actual bias or a likelihood of bias' can support a due process claim.”[33] And that alleged prejudice “must be based on more than mere speculation and tenuous inferences.”[34]
Here, Tshudy's due process allegations fail for a number of reasons. First, they are conclusory and/or inconsistent. By way of example: (1) “she did not have the opportunity to have counsel;” versus “[she] was not given counsel;” (2) “Plaintiff was denied due process at the honor code hearing;” (3) “Plaintiff was not allowed to appropriately cross-examine her accusers.”[35] These bare allegations do not overcome the presumption that Penn State was impartial during the Honor Committee hearing, nor do they allege actual bias. It would certainly be appropriate for the Court to dismiss this claim on the basis of these conclusory allegations alone, but it is worth noting that context matters here.
This claim arises from an academic disciplinary hearing at a state university, and there is no law establishing that the rights Tshudy alleges were violated exist. First, Tshudy's allegations imply that she had a right to university-provided counsel. But no such...
To continue reading
Request your trial