An Administrator's Guide to California Private School Law

Chapter 15 – Student Discipline

contractual promise, and not an academic matter. The Court therefore denied the University’s motion for summary judgment, allowing the student to proceed to trial on her breach claim against the University. The primary factor to which courts look in reviewing whether a disciplinary decision is fundamentally fair is whether the school adhered to its stated disciplinary procedures. 2137 The failure to adhere to such procedures may result in a judicial determination that the discipline was arbitrary and therefore not fair. While strict adherence to disciplinary procedures is always the most risk-averse approach, mistakes made during the disciplinary process need not be fatal. If a school discovers a defect in the implementation of its process, it should immediately correct it. Correcting mistakes during the process can “cure” the mistakes in most instances. Kuritzky v. Emory University 2138 A student expelled from a private university sued the university for breach of contract, alleging that his expulsion was in retaliation for criticizing the university. The student alleged that the university failed to follow its disciplinary procedures set forth in the student handbook. Specifically, the disciplinary procedures afforded the student the right to review the reports of misconduct made against him prior to undergoing a disciplinary review hearing. The student reviewed the reports of misconduct, and then underwent the review hearing. The review hearing was initially not conducted properly. In response, the University nullified and restarted the hearing. The student then claimed that he should have been afforded the opportunity to review the reports of misconduct again prior to the second hearing. The court disagreed and found that the university had adhered to the disciplinary procedures set forth in its student handbook, despite the fact that it had to nullify the first hearing and restart the hearing process.

“Curing” a mistake in the disciplinary process is typically accomplished by re-doing a step in that process. For example, if a student was supposed to have received notice of the opportunity to address the Head of School before a disciplinary decision becomes final, and the School failed to provide that notice before finalizing discipline, the School should “go back” and provide that notice before determining whether to impose the final discipline.

LCW Practice Advisor

Kickertz v. New York University 2139 A student initiated court proceedings to have a private university’s decision to expel her annulled. Although the University’s student handbook required a hearing before expelling a student, the University mistakenly dismissed the student without providing a hearing. Upon the student’s complaint that she had

An Administrator’s Guide to California Private School Law ©2019 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 516