PHILADELPHIA – Penn State University seeks a protective order over its investigation of a student who alleged the school rescinded her Master’s Degree more than a year and a half after she was awarded it due to supposedly not producing original work.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 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.”
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Timothy J. Savage overruled the school’s motion to dismiss on Oct. 25, finding the litigation credible enough to proceed.
“Upon consideration of the defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint, the plaintiff’s response, defendant’s reply, and the plaintiff’s sur-reply, and it appearing that the amended complaint states a claim for a procedural due process violation, it is ordered that the motion is denied,” Savage said.
UPDATE
On Dec. 29, Penn State filed a motion for a protective order, in order to shield the records of the academic conduct investigation it launched into Eberly.
“Discovery in this case has involved, and will continue to involve, the production or disclosure of information, documents and/or other tangible things constituting confidential information, information about confidential internal academic integrity processes, personal information of the parties, and/or other confidential or personal information of third parties. Much of the confidential material in this action relates to an academic misconduct investigation against Eberly performed by the University,” the motion stated.
“The academic misconduct investigation was governed by the University policy RP02, Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct. Policy RP02 contains multiple provisions designed to protect the confidentiality of everyone involved throughout the investigatory process. It is important that those involved in the University’s research misconduct process – not just Ms. Eberly, but those who have participated in the past and will participate in the future – understand that the University will take all reasonable steps to maintain the confidentiality of the process.”
According to the university, “the unrestricted production or disclosure of information, documents and/or other tangible things constituting confidential information, personal information of the parties” and/or other confidential or personal information of third parties may work clearly defined and serious injuries to the parties in this case, and therefore, “protections are therefore necessary to preserve and protect the confidentiality of the confidential material.”
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