Huntsinger et al v. Idaho State University et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

KIARRA HUNTSINGER and KRISTIN
EVANS,

Case No. 4:14-cv-00237-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
V.
IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY; LINDA
J. ALEXANDER; DR. ROBERT J.
FISHER, Department of Mathematics
Chair; and DR. DAVID ROGERS,
Associate Dean of the College of Science
& Engineering at Idaho State
University,
Defendants.

BACKGROUND
The Court held a telephone hearing on June 25, 2014, on Plaintiffs Kiarra
Huntsinger and Kristin Evan’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 2). Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants Idaho State
University, Linda J. Alexander, Dr. Robert J. Fisher, and Dr. David Rogers violated their
due process rights by accusing both students of cheating and awarding them failing

grades before allowing them an opportunity to respond to the accusation of academic
dishonesty. Plaintiffs asked the Court to “enjoin Defendants from continuing to
irreparably harm Kiarra and Kristin’s reputations by requiring Defendants to exonerate
Kiarra and Kristin and to destroy all records about the alleged act of dishonesty.” Pls’
Opening Br. at 1-2, Dkt. 2-1.
The Court orally granted Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction, finding that
Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the University did not provide them
with the process they were due. The Court ordered the parties to meet and attempt to
agree on an appeals procedure.
Thereafter, the University entered into a settlement agreement with Plaintiff Kiarra
Huntsinger. Huntsinger and the University agreed that Huntsinger would be allowed to
retake the final exam in exchange for the dismissal of her claims. Plaintiff Kristin Evans
rejected a similar settlement offer, and Evans and the University are unable to agree on a
proposed appeals procedure. So, at the Court’s direction, both parties have both
submitted a proposed procedure.
ANALYSIS
The fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no state
shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
U.S.Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Due process requires, at a minimum, that persons must be
given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 377
(1971).

In this case, the Court finds that the accusations of cheating against Evans and the
failing grade she received entitle her to more formal procedural protections than, say, a
10-day suspension would warrant. See, e.g., Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 581 (1975)
(requiring effective notice and informal hearing permitting the student to give his version
of the events before 10-day suspension). Although Evans was not suspended for any
amount of time, a failing grade for misconduct is more akin to a longer suspension than a
short 10-day suspension. The repercussions of a failing grade – especially based on
accusations of cheating – could reverberate throughout the rest of Evan’s academic and
professional life. For this reason, more formal procedures were required in this case than
the informal give-and-take required in Goss for a short 10-day suspension.
Having reviewed both parties’ proposed processes with this standard in mind, the
Court finds that the University’s proposed process adequately protects Evan’s due
process rights. The process the University proposes gives Evans the chance to present
evidence at a formal hearing, to be represented by legal counsel, to receive a clear written
decision, to appeal to an impartial board, and to be formally exonerated if such a
determination is made. Such a process would afford Evans the constitutional protections
she is entitled to, and more. Evans’ concerns about the impartiality of Defendant Linda
Alexander and Defendant Dr. Robert Fisher are unfounded because neither Dr. Fisher nor
Ms. Alexander will be decision makers during this process. If Evans would like the
opportunity to retake the exam, she can enter into a settlement with the University. But
the Court will not force the University to allow Evans to retake the exam so long as they
afford her due process.

The Court will therefore adopt, with only minor modifications, the procedures
proposed by the University as follows:
1. Evans, after having received a report from her instructor indicating that the
instructor believes that there was evidence of academic dishonesty when Evans took her
final examination in Math 1153-02: Introduction to Statistics final examination, and the
instructor's recommendation that Evans receive an "F" grade for the course, has agreed to
appeal her instructor's recommendation to Dean Richard Brey, Dean of the College of
Science and Engineering at ISU.
2. Dean Brey shall set a date for a formal hearing to discuss the allegations,
the evidence, and the recommended sanction. He shall moderate the hearing and keep a
written record of it. The hearing shall include the instructor, Evans, legal counsel for
Evans, and legal counsel for Defendants. Dean Brey shall be the final decision-maker at
this stage of the appeal process.
3. If the formal hearing results in Evans being exonerated of all charges of
academic dishonesty, Dean Brey shall prepare a letter or memorandum stating that Evans
has been exonerated and requesting that all records about the alleged act of dishonesty be
destroyed, other than Dean Brey's record of the hearing. Dean Brey shall send copies of
the letter or memorandum to:
a. the instructor,
b. Evans,
c. the chairperson of the department in which the instructor holds an
appointment,

d. the chairperson of the department in which Evans is a major,
e. the dean of the college in which Evans is a major.
4. If Evans is not exonerated of all charges, and Dean Brey affirms the
instructor's recommendation that Evans receive an ''F" grade for the course, then Dean
Brey shall send copies of the written record of the formal hearing to parties (1)-(5) above,
along with his written decision. In his written decision, Dean Brey shall provide a
statement of the allegations with sufficient clarity to enable Evans to prepare her defense.
His written decision shall also provide the names of witnesses, and locations of
statements, exhibits or evidence that might be introduced in the hearing with the right of
inspection.
5. Evans may appeal Dean Brey's written decision to the Academic
Dishonesty Board within five (5) days of receiving it. The Board shall consist of six
voting members:
a. a faculty member selected by the chairperson of the Academic
Standards Council to serve as chair,
b. the ASISU Vice President, who serves as vice chair,
c. two members chosen by the Board chair from a pool of faculty
members selected by the Academic Standards Council, and
d. four members chosen by the Board vice chair from a pool of
students selected by the ASISU Senate.
The chair of the Board shall then set a formal hearing, one that allows Evans
sufficient time to prepare a defense and allows Board members sufficient time to review

all the materials hel in the Of
m
ld
ffice of Stud Affairs including any submi
dent
s,
g
itted by Eva
ans,
but no la than 30 days from receiving Evans' requ for an a
ater
0
E
uest
appeal heari
ing.
All members of the Boa must be present at the hearing Evans has the right t
A
s
ard
e
g.
to
appear in person wi or witho legal cou
n
ith
out
unsel to pre
esent her de
efense and t call
to
witnesse on her be
es
ehalf. Evans has the rig to ask qu
s
ght
questions of any witnes
f
sses.
Evans has th right not to testify on her behal and to ref
E
he
lf
fuse to answ question
wer
ns.
Evans ha the right to be verba notified of the Boa
as
ally
d
ard's decisio immedia
on
ately and to
o
receive a written no
otification of the decisi within t
o
ion
three worki days aft the heari
ing
ter
ing.
This not
tification sh include written find
hall
dings, decis
sions, and c
conclusions of the Boa
s
ard.
The Board's decision sh be impl
T
hall
lemented by the Provo and Vice President for
y
ost
e
Academ Affairs.
mic
IT IS SO ORDERE
O
ED.

DAT
TED: October 15, 201
14

__________
__________
_____
___
B. L
Lynn Winm
mill
Chief Judge
ited
District Cou
urt
Uni States D