PHILADELPHIA – Both parties in litigation pitting a student against Penn State University seek to delay trial proceedings, in a case which alleged the school rescinded her Master’s Degree more than a year and a half after she was awarded it and claimed that the plaintiff didn’t produce wholly original work.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.”
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.”
UPDATE
After an amended complaint was filed on Aug. 8 and an answer to that amended complaint filed on Aug. 23, Penn State University then filed a joint motion to delay pre-trial proceedings on Oct. 6.
“The University’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, however, has only been fully briefed and ripe for determination since Sept. 30, 2021, less than one month before the fact discovery deadline. The scope of discovery in this case will largely be determined by the Court’s decision on the motion to dismiss the amended complaint and, if granted in full, would altogether eliminate the need for discovery,” the motion stated.
“Moreover, plaintiff is seeking to take the deposition of a professor of the University who is currently on sabbatical in California with very limited availability. To avoid the unnecessary expense of conducting discovery beyond the scope of the issues actually in dispute, the parties respectfully request a continuance of the pretrial deadlines set forth in the scheduling order.”
Both parties requested that the Court grant the motion, continue the pretrial deadlines and trial of this matter by 60 days; and grant such further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
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