Quantcast

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Penn State student's suit over rescinding of Master's Degree may be dismissed, if not served by later this week

Federal Court
Timothyjsavage

Savage | Ballotpedia

PHILADELPHIA – A lawsuit from a Penn State University student which alleged the school rescinded her Master’s Degree more than a year and a half after she was awarded it, claiming that the plaintiff didn’t produce wholly original work, may soon be dismissed if its service deadline under the law is not met.

Michelle Eberly of Dover first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 13 versus Pennsylvania State University, of Abington.

“The gravamen of this lawsuit arises out of the retroactive rescission of plaintiff’s Master’s Degree, over 1.5 years after it was granted. Penn State University decided to retroactively allege that portions of plaintiff’s Master’s Thesis had been plagiarized, after said thesis had been carefully and extensively vetted by three professors at Penn State and granted by the University,” the suit stated.

“This ‘ex post facto’ action by Penn State was without authority, in violation of due process, and breached the expressed and implied contract with plaintiff.”

According to Eberly, the reason her Master’s Thesis was re-examined in the first place was a dispute she had with Professor Anthony Buccitelli. The suit claims Buccitelli sent an email on March 21, 2019, involving personal information about the plaintiff, to her entire class.

More than a year and a half after it was first submitted, the suit added that Eberly’s Master’s Thesis was input into a computer program called “Turn It In”, which purports to compare similarities in one document with other documents.

According to Eberly, Professor Buccitelli, despite having no connection to the plaintiff’s academic program, accessed her thesis without permission and put it into “Turn It In”, all without permission of plaintiff and in violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act statute.

Eberly said this action was taken without notice to her and without such a program ever being utilized in the Department of Communications, where a committee awarded plaintiff her degree. Subsequently, the chairman of the department, Dr. Peter Kareithi, wrote a report defending the Master’s Thesis.

Eberly said her due process rights were violated, as she was not given a hearing or an opportunity to defend herself from the allegations regarding her thesis.

“As a result of the conduct of Penn State and her agents, the civil rights of plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and due process rights of plaintiff were violated,” per the suit.

“Plaintiff suffered damages, including but not limited to, failure to receive a Master’s or Doctoral Degree, loss of opportunity for further employment, and loss of her tuition, and the cost of books and incidental expenses, as well as loss of future earnings and earning capacity. Plaintiff also suffered consequential damages arising from the arbitrary actions of the defendant in failing to allow plaintiff to complete her graduate program, as well as emotional distress and loss of life’s pleasures.”

For multiple counts of violating due process and civil rights, the plaintiff is seeking damages not in excess of $150,000 at arbitration only, plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees, if applicable, as well as reinstatement and any appropriate judicial relief.

UPDATE

Per a document sent to plaintiff counsel and filed with the Court on April 16 by Alex Eggert, Deputy Clerk to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Timothy J. Savage, the complaint may be dismissed on May 14, if proper service is not made to the defendant.

“A review of the docket shows that service of the complaint has not been made. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the defendant must be served with the complaint within 90 days after the complaint is filed. If service is not made by May 14, 2021, the action will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution, unless good cause for the failure to comply with Rule 4(m) is shown prior to that time,” the document read.

The plaintiff is represented by William C. Reil of the Law Offices of William C. Reil, in Philadelphia.

The defendant has not yet obtained legal counsel.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-00678

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News