Academic Misconduct; Admissions; Students; Due Process; Retaliation; Constitutional Issues
Isaacs v. Trustees of Dartmouth College (D.N.H. July 12, 2017)
Order granting in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, dismissing certain claims sua sponte, and ordering Plaintiff to show cause. Plaintiff had attended the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine (USC) until he was dismissed after his first year for harassing a classmate. He was later awarded a medical degree by the American University of the Caribbean, Netherlands Antilles, and served the first three weeks of his residency at the University of Arizona (UA). After resigning from UA, he then applied for and obtained a residency at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (DHMC). Plaintiff’s application materials omitted attendance at USC and his aborted residency at UA from his application. After DHMC dismissed him for academic deficiency, inappropriate behavior, and falsification of reports, along with the misrepresentation on his application, Plaintiff sued the Trustees of Dartmouth College, DHMC, and others alleging substantive and procedural due process violations, conspiracy to deprive him of his civil rights, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) retaliation, among other claims not adjudicated here. The court dismissed Plaintiff’s first three claims and ordered him to show cause why his ADA retaliation claims should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Admissions; Affirmative Action; Affirmative Action; Students; Equal Protection
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (D. Mass. June 2, 2017)
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Harvard College’s Motion to Dismiss. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA), a nonprofit organization of voluntary members whose mission is to defend human and civil rights secured by law, filed suit alleging that Harvard uses racially and ethnically discriminatory policies and procedures in administering its undergraduate admissions program in violation of Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, SFFA contends that Harvard’s general consideration of race in its undergraduate admissions program violates the Equal Protection Clause because it allegedly engages in unlawful “racial balancing.” Additionally, SFFA alleges that Harvard's policies invidiously discriminate against Asian-American applicants in particular by admitting only a limited number of Asian-American applicants each year. Harvard challenged the SFFA’s standing to file suit, primarily based on the argument that SFFA’s members play no meaningful role in the organization and therefore SFFA cannot genuinely represent them for the purposes of associational standing. The court concluded that SFFA, as an organization of actual members, did not need to meet the “indicia of membership” test to assert associational standing and that it met all the remaining standing prerequisites.