PHILADELPHIA – Penn State University wants to dismiss litigation from one of its students, which alleged the school rescinded her Master’s Degree more than a year and a half after she was awarded it and claimed that the plaintiff didn’t produce wholly original work.
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.”
UPDATE
Penn State University filed a motion to dismiss the case on May 21, believing Eberly did not state claims upon which relief could be granted.
“While vague, plaintiff appears to assert substantive and procedural due process claims arising under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. These claims fail at the pleading stage. Plaintiff does not and cannot plead that she was deprived of a property interest that is afforded substantive due process protection. Moreover, plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that she was not afforded procedural due process prior to her degree being revoked,” per the defense’s dismissal motion.
“Plaintiff may also be attempting to assert claims for disability discrimination and breach of contract, although this is not at all clear from the face of the complaint. Even if plaintiff is attempting to assert disability discrimination and breach of contract claims, she has failed to allege sufficient plausible facts to maintain such claims.”
Notably, defense counsel said Eberly “does not allege that the University deprived her of any interest in real property, but rather, “contends that she had a property interest in her [Master’s] degree.”
“Although it is not clear, plaintiff may also be claiming that she had a right to continued graduate education. Regardless, neither an interest in a particular degree nor in continued graduate education is a recognized fundamental property interest protected by the Constitution. Plaintiff has therefore failed to allege sufficient facts to establish the threshold requirement that she has a property interest to which the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process protections apply,” the motion stated.
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.
The plaintiff is represented by William C. Reil of the Law Offices of William C. Reil, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by James A. Keller and Blaine R. Feinauer of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, in Philadelphia and Wayne.
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