Date post: | 01-Mar-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | scribd-government-docs |
View: | 220 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 27
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
1/27
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFICREPORTER.
Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,
303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email
THESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFALASKA
QWYNTENRICHARDS,
Appellant,
v.
UNIVERSITYOFALASKA,
Appellee.
)) SupremeCourtNo.S-15245
SuperiorCourtNo.4FA-10-01246CI
OPINION
No.7090March18,2016
)))))
))
_______________________________)
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska,FourthJudicialDistrict,Fairbanks,PaulR.Lyle,Judge.
Appearances: Qwynten Richards, pro se, Fairbanks,Appellant. Susan Orlansky, Reeves Amodio LLC,
Anchorage,forAppellee.
Before:Stowers,ChiefJustice,Fabe,Maassen,andBolger,Justices.[Winfree,Justice,notparticipating.]
STOWERS,Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
After a two-day hearing, the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
dismissedQwyntenRichardsfromherPh.D.programforfailingtorespondtofeedback
fromherprofessorsinavarietyofsettings.AnAppealsCommitteeatUAFaffirmed
Richardssdismissalfromtheprogrambecauseitconcludedthatthereweresufficient
negativereviewsfromherprofessorstosupportherdismissalandthatshehadfailedto
satisfactorilycompletearemediationassignmentgiventoherafterthefacultyfound
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
2/27
sheplagiarizedpartsofapaper. Richardsappealedtothesuperiorcourt. Thecourt
affirmed,holdingthatUAFwasreasonableincharacterizingherdismissalasacademic,
thatit substantiallycompliedwithitsprocedures, andthatRichardsreceiveddueprocess.
ItalsoawardedUAF10%ofitsclaimedattorneysfees. Richardsappeals,andwe
affirm.
II. FACTSANDPROCEEDINGS
A. FactsAndAdministrativeProceedings
Qwynten Richards began attending UAF for a Ph.D. program in
Clinical-CommunityPsychologyin thefallof2007. Inheryear-endreviewforthe
2007-2008academicyear,Richardsreceivedasatisfactoryreview. Thereviewwas
generallypositive,butitalsonotedafewareasofconcern,namelythatRichardswas
quietinclassbutthiswasimproving,thatshewastoocriticaloftheDiagnosticand
StatisticalManual(DSM),andthatherinstructorsnotedthatshehaddifficultyaccepting
feedback.
Immediatelyfollowingthisreview,Dr.ChristianeBrems,aprofessorfor
oneofRichardsscourses,broughtapossibleincidentofplagiarismtotheattentionof
theco-teacherofthecourse,Dr.JamesAllen.Dr.AllenalertedDonFoley,theAssociate
ViceChancellorofStudentLifeandDirectorofJudicialServices,totheincident,and
Dr.Allenrequestedthathe,Dr.Brems,Foley,andRichardsmeettodiscusstheissue.
Drs.AllenandBremswerealsotheDirectorsofClinicalTrainingfortheprogram.They
notifiedRichardsanddirectedhertoattendameetingtodiscusstheallegations. They
informedRichardsofthe specific paper inquestion: the integratedpapershehad
submittedinfulfillmentofthecourserequirementsofPsychology601,aseminarinClinical/Community/Cross-Cultural Integration. They also notified her of the
provisionsoftheUniversityofAlaskaStudentCodeofConduct(StudentCodeof
Conduct)prohibitingplagiarism. Richardsdeniedtheplagiarismallegation.
-2- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
3/27
Dr.Brems,Dr.Allen,Foley,andRichardsmetonMay28,2008. Atthatmeeting
Richardswasadvisedsectionsofthe[integration]paper[she]submittedappearedto
havebeenplagiarized. Shewasgiventheopportunitytopresent[her]viewsonthe
situation.AfterthemeetingRichardsemailedDr.Allen,Dr.Brems,andFoleyandsaid
thatshewasgladshehadbeengiventhechancetoexplainthatshehadsatisfactorily
citedallofhersourcesinthepaper.
OnJune19thecorefacultyofRichardssprogrammetinanexecutive
session without Richards to discuss the situation. At this meeting the faculty
unanimouslyconcluded [thatRichardss]writingconstitutedplagiarism,defining
plagiarismaspresentingas[ones]owntheideasorworksofanotherpersonwithout
properacknowledgmentofsources. TheygaveRichardsanewannualreviewthat
changedherperformancetounsatisfactory,statedthatshewouldreceiveanFforthe
paperandagradeofNotPassing(NP)forthecourse,andthatshewouldberequiredto
writearemediationpaperonhowandwhy[her]Integrationpaperwasjudgedtohave
beenplagiarized. Thefacultydecisionalsonotedthatsheshouldknowthat[shehas]
therighttoappealacademicdecisionsandthatsheshouldrefertotheAcademicsand
Regulations,AppealofAcademicDecisionssectionofthe2008-2009UAFcatalog.
Richardsdidnotappealthisdecision. Theupdatedreviewalsowarnedthat[a]ny
breachoftheseexpectationscanresultinnon-continuationinthePh.D.Programin
Clinical-CommunityPsychology.
Richardssubmittedherremediationpaperforfacultyreview.InJanuary
2009Dr.WilliamConnor,UAFDirectorofClinicalTraining,andDr.Bremsnotified
RichardsthatthecorePh.D.facultyhadconcludedthatherremediationpaperdidnotmeettheassignmentrequirementsbecauseitdidnotdemonstrateanunderstandingof
howandwhy[the]paperwasjudgedtohavebeenplagiarized,anditdidnotshowan
acknowledgment that there is an agreed upon standard with regard to crediting
-3- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
4/27
authorshipthathasbeenestablishedbyandusedintheprofessionofpsychology.
Whilethedocumentdidnotcontainappeallanguage,thefacultydidconductaninformal
reconsiderationoftheirdecisionatRichardssrequest.
Richardssinabilitytoacceptfeedbackwasnotlimitedtoproblemswith
herremediationpaper. Manyotherprofessorsnotedtheseissuesinavarietyofsettings.
Forinstance,theprofessorforwhomRichardsservedasaresearchassistantaskedher
toresign.TheprofessorstatedthatRichardssfuturesuccessisinpartcontingenton
[her]abilitytoacceptandberesponsivetofeedbackandthatRichardssinabilityto
dosocontributedto[theprofessors]decisiontoaskhertoresign.
RichardsalsoengagedinaclinicalpracticumwithDr.MichaelHopper.
Dr.HoppernotedthatRichardswasquicktoquestionanddoubtthejudgementand
experience of others. At her final review in May 2009, Dr. Hopper wrote that
Richardss
inabilitytoacceptconstructivecriticism insupervisionandtoexplorepersonalissues...ledtoseriousimpasseswiththissupervisorandtoasuspensionofherrighttopracticebrieflyintheclinic. IntheendIfoundsupervisiontohavebeen
extremelydifficultwith[Richards]asshedoesnotseemtounderstandtheroleofatraineeandinsistsonapositionofequalityand personal competencewhich she has not yetearned.
Heconcludedthatalthoughherworkwithclientswascommendable,Richardsdid
notearn[his]confidenceinherabilitiesand[he]do[esnot]recommendheratthispoint
forcontinuedclinicaltraininguntilsheisabletoresolvetheissuesthathaveplaguedher
trainingtothispoint.1
1 Thesuperiorcourtfoundthat,giventhetoneofthecomments,Dr.Hoppermeanttowritedonotrecommendratherthandorecommend. Richardsdoesnotdisputethisfindingonappeal.
-4- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
5/27
InApril,justpriortoDr.Hoppersreview,thefullPh.D.facultymetatits
annualstudentreviewmeetingandunanimouslyrecommendednotcontinuingRichards
intheprogram.OnJune11thefacultysentRichardsaletterstatingthat[d]uetothe
fact[]that[shehad]receivedtwoyearsofnegativeevaluations,andthatthecorefaculty
in the Ph.D. program ha[d] lost faith in [her] ability to receive and respond to
professional feedback in academic, clinical and research settings, the faculty
recommendsthat[she]resignfromthePh.D.program. Thefacultyinformedherthat
shehadthreeweekstoeitherrespondtothisrecommendationorresignandthatifshe
chose not to resign, the next steps outlined in the Student Impairment and
Incompetence Policy as listed in the current Ph.D. Student Handbook [the
Handbook]...[would]befollowed. Specifically,thefacultyinformedherthatifshe
chosenottoresign,theGovernanceCommitteewouldholdahearingtodetermine
whethertodismissherfromtheprogram.
Richardschosenottoresign. Instead,shesubmittedvoluminousmaterials
totheGovernanceCommitteedetailinghighmarksanddocumentingfavorablereviews
fromherprofessors. ThefacultytransmittedamemototheGovernanceCommittee
outliningthestepsithadtakenanditsreasonsforrecommendingRichardssdismissal.
TheGovernanceCommitteeheldahearingonSeptember3-4. Richardsdidnotpresent
anywitnesses,butshedidtestifyonbothdaysofthehearing. Richardsdidnotexercise
heroptiontohaveanattorneypresent,butshedidhaveastudentrepresentativeattend
withher.
On September 17, UAF sent Richards a letter notifying her that the
GovernanceCommitteehaddecidedtodismissherfromthePh.D.program. ThelettercitedRichardsstwosemestersofnot-in-good-standingstatus,herfailuretosatisfactorily
completetheremediationassignment,andherfailuretoacceptoractuponfeedbackin
clinicalandresearchsettings.TheletterinformedRichardsthatshehad10daysfrom
-5- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
6/27
the receipt of this letter to appeal thisdecision in writing to UAFProvost Susan
Henrichs.
RichardsfirstinformallyappealedthedecisioninameetingonOctober6
withLawrenceDuffy(theInterimDean),LauraBender(theDirectoroftheGraduate
School),andDr.AbelBult-Ito(aprofessorwhohadbecomeanadvocateforRichards).
TheDeannotedthatRichardssdetailedappeal
mainlyaddresse[d][her]disagreementwiththeprofessionalswhoworkedwith[her]andgave[her]grades.... Inthisinformalappeal,[his]decisionremain[ed]unchangedinthat[heplaced]greaterweightontheprofessionalopinionofthefacultythanon[Richardss]opinionofhowtheprogram
shouldevaluatestudents.Heconcludedthatthedecisionremain[ed]unchanged,andheadvisedRichardsofher
righttoappealtoUAFProvostHenrichs.
RichardsformallyappealedthedecisiontotheProvostonOctober31.The
AppealsCommitteemetonDecember3andissuedadecisiononDecember10. The
decisionstatedthattheAppealsCommitteehadreviewedallofthedocumentation
submitted[]andengagedinlengthydeliberation. TheAppealsCommitteedismissed
RichardssappealconcerningherterminationfromthePh.D.program. 2 Itdetermined
thatthefacultywaswithinitsrightstomakethedecisiontodismissherfromthePh.D.
program,thatfeedbackwasvitalinpsychology,andthatevenifastudentdisagreedwith
feedbackitiscriticalinaprogram requiringprofessionallicensurethatstudentscomply
withprofessionalrequestsandadvice. ButtheAppealsCommitteedeterminedthat
Richardscouldapplytootherprogramsinthegraduateschoolthroughthenormal
applicationprocess. Richardsappealedthisdecisiontothesuperiorcourt.
2 TheAppealsCommitteeusedthetermdismissedinthesensethatitdeniedorrejectedRichardssappellatearguments,therebyupholdingtheGovernanceCommitteesdecisiontodismissherfromthePh.D.program.
-6- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
7/27
B. SuperiorCourtProceedings
ThesuperiorcourtaffirmedRichardssdismissalfromthePh.D.program
atUAF. First, itconcludedthatitwasnotarbitrary,unreasonable,oranabuseof
discretion for UAF to characterize Richardss dismissal as academic, rather than
disciplinary.3 ItfurthernotedthatthereasonsRichardshadbeendismissedfailureto
acceptfeedbackfromherprofessorsthroughouthertimeintheprogram,particularlyas
a research assistant and in her clinical practicum, and failure to demonstrate an
understandingofwhyherpaperconstitutedplagiarism wereacademicreasonsinlight
ofNickerson v. University of Alaska Anchorage,whereNickersonsacademicdismissal
wasforhostile, abrasive, intimidating,and unprofessionalbehavior.4 Second,it
concluded that UAF substantially complied with its policies relating to academic
violationsaslaidoutintheHandbook.Finally,itheldthatRichardsreceivedampledue
processbecauseUAFprovidedherwithnotice,multipleopportunitiestobeheard,
carefuldeliberation,andindependentreview.
UAF asked for 50% of its attorneys fees, roughly $25,000, because
Richardsslongandcomplexbriefingresultedinsubstantialextraexpenses.Richards
arguedthatrequiringhertopayanyattorneysfeeswasimproperbecauseshewasa
constitutionallitigant and didnothaveamonetary interest inthecase. The court
concludedthatRichardswasnotaconstitutionalclaimantanddeterminedthatanaward
of 20% of UAFs fees would be appropriate under Alaska Rule of Civil
Procedure82(b)(2).However,thecourtalsoworriedaboutchillingfutureclaimsand
thereforeawardedonly10%ofUAFsclaimedattorneysfees.
3 Theuniversityproceduresandthelevelofdueprocessthatourprecedentrequiresdifferforacademicproceedingsanddisciplinaryproceedings. See Nickersonv. Univ. of Alaska Anchorage,975P.2d46,52-54(Alaska1999).
4 Id.at52.
-7- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
8/27
Richards appeals. In this appeal, we address three central issues:
(1)whethertheappealwasacademicordisciplinary;(2)whetherUAFsubstantially
compliedwithitsproceduresandwhetherevidenceintherecordsupporteditsdecision;
and(3)whetherRichardsreceiveddueprocess.
Wewillalsodiscussthesuperiorcourts
awardofattorneysfees.
III. STANDARDOFREVIEW
In administrative appeals, we directly review the agency action in
question.5Wereviewquestionsoffactforsubstantialevidence,whichissuchrelevant
evidenceasareasonablemindmightacceptasadequatetosupportaconclusion. 6 We
need only determine whether such evidence exists, and do not choose between
competinginferences.7
Wewillnotoverrideaschoolsacademicdecisionunlessitissucha
substantialdeparturefromacceptedacademicnormsastodemonstratethattheperson
orcommitteeresponsibledidnotactuallyexerciseprofessionaljudgment.8 Wereview
whether the school complied with its policies under the arbitrary, unreasonable,
or...abuseofdiscretionstandard.9 Questionsoflawthatrequireagencyexpertiseare
5 Brown v. Pers. Bd. for City of Kenai,327P.3d871,874(Alaska2014)(quotingGrimmett v. Univ. of Alaska,303P.3d482,487(Alaska2013)).
6 Id. (quotingGrimmett,303P.3dat487).
7 Handley v. State, Dept of Revenue,838P.2d1231,1233(Alaska1992).
8 Bruner v. Petersen,944P.2d43,48(Alaska1997)(quotingRegents of theUniv. of Mich. v. Ewing,474U.S.214,225(1985)).
9 Nickerson,975P.2dat50n.1(quotingSzejner v. Univ. of Alaska,944P.2d481,484n.2(Alaska1997)).
-8- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
9/27
reviewedunderthereasonablebasisstandard. 10
WhethertheUniversityprocedurescomportedwithdueprocessinvolve[s]
aquestionoflawnotrequiringagencyexpertise. 11 Thus,wereviewthisquestionusing
ourindependentjudgment.12
Wereviewanattorneysfeesawardforanabuseofdiscretionandwill
reversewhentheawardisarbitrary,capricious,manifestlyunreasonable,orimproperly
motivated.13
IV. DISCUSSION14
10 May v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commn, 175 P.3d 1211,
1215-16(Alaska2007).
11 Nickerson,975P.2dat50n.1.
12 Id.
13 Rhodes v. Erion,189P.3d1051,1053(Alaska2008)(quotingKellis v.Crites,20P.3d1112,1113(Alaska2001)).
14 WeareabletodisposeofseveralofRichardssargumentsinsummaryfashion.
(1)Richardsarguesthatshedidnotplagiarizeherpaper,thatnofindingofplagiarismwasevermade,andthatnooneidentifiedtheproblematicportionsofthepaper.However,therecordclearlyestablishesthatthefacultyunanimouslyconcludedthatRichardsswritingconstitutedplagiarism. Furthermore,theissuesdiscussedwithRichardsduringtheMay2008meetingandRichardssemaildiscussinghowshehadrespondedtotheallegationsbyshowingthatsourceswerecorrectlycitedrevealthatRichardsknewwhichportionsofthepaperwereinquestion.
(2)Richardsdoesnotdisputethatshedidnotappealtheplagiarismdecisioneventhoughshehadtherighttodosoandwasinformedofthisright. However,Richards argues that anappealwould havebeenfutilebecause the allegation was
unfounded,shewasnotthreatenedwithdismissalatthetime,heraccuserswouldbethedecision-makersonappeal,shehadnoadvisortoadviseher,andshewasexperiencingfamilyissues.Contrarytoherassertion,theamendedreviewclearlystatesthatdismissalwasapossibility.Secondly,theappealspolicyprovidesforaninformalappealwiththedecisionmakerfollowedbyaformalappealtotheProvost,apersonoutsideRichardss
(continued...)
-9- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
10/27
A. UAFActedReasonablyWhenItCharacterizedTheDismissalAsAnAcademicDismissal.
Richards contends that UAF arbitrarilycharacterizedherdismissalas
academicwhenthedismissalwasactuallydisciplinary. Richardsfocusesherargument
onthefactsthat(1)theStudentCodeofConductdefinesplagiarismasadisciplinary
infraction;(2)Foley, theDirectorof Judicial Services,initiatedtheplagiarism allegation;
(3)theinitialnoticeoftheplagiarismallegationdirectedhertotheStudentCodeof
Conductplagiarismsectionanddisciplinarypolicy09:02,nottheHandbook;and(4)
plagiarismproceedingsaredisciplinarybecauseplagiarismallegationsimplydishonesty.
Nickersonpresentedasimilarquestion. Nickersonwasenrolledinthe
UniversityofAlaskaAnchoragesTeacherCertificationProgram,andhewasdismissed
14(...continued)corefaculty.TheAppealsCommitteealsodidnotincludeheraccusers.Moreover,herfamilyissuesandthelackofadvisordonotmaketheappealfutileunderAlaskacaselaw,andherbeliefthattheallegationswereunfoundedshouldhavecausedhertoappeal.See, e.g.,Nickerson,975P.2dat52n.2;State, Dept of Revenue v. Hernandez,No.S10745,2004WL1092334,at*6(AlaskaMay12,2004)(holdingthatappealwasfutilewhentheStatealreadyrefusedtoaddressissue).
(3)Richardsmakesmanyfactualassertions,bothaboutfactsthesuperiorcourtfoundandfactsthatdidnotimpactthedecisionsoftheUniversityandthesuperiorcourt.RichardsallegesthatDr.Allenwastheonewhoaccusedherofplagiarismandthatallofthenegativereviewsinthe2008evaluationwerefromonesexistprofessor.Thesefactualallegationsareunsupported.
(4)Finally,Richardsarguesthatbeingforcedtowritetheremediationpaperviolatedherrightagainstself-incriminationandthatbyhavingoneinformalmeetingandthenasecondexecutivemeetingofthefacultyregardingtheplagiarismissue,UAFputherindoublejeopardy.Buttherightagainstdoublejeopardydoesnotapplyoutsidethe
criminalcontext,absentextremecircumstancesnotpresenthere.
Hudson v. U.S.,522U.S.93,98-99(1997).See also Doe v. State,189P.3d999,1007&n.58(Alaska2008).Andalthoughtherightagainstself-incriminationappliesinanyproceeding,civilorcriminal,formalorinformal,wheretheanswersmightincriminate[theparty]infuturecriminalproceedings,plagiarismisnotacrime.Armstrong v. Tanaka,228P.3d79,82(Alaska2010).See also Lawson v. Lawson,108P.3d883,887(Alaska2005).
-10- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
11/27
basedonhisfailuretorespondtofeedbackandhishostilebehaviortowardsprofessors
and colleagues.15 UAA characterized Nickersons dismissal as an academic, not
disciplinary,dismissal.16 Weacknowledgedthatthisissuewasaclosecallandaccepted
theUniversitysdecisionbecausethedeterminationwhethertodismissastudentfor
academicreasonsrequiresanexpertevaluationofcumulativeinformationandisnot
readilyadaptedtotheproceduraltoolsofjudicialoradministrativedecisionmaking. 17
Richardscontendsthatsheexperiencedallegations...thatwere...very
similartothosemadeagainstNickerson. ButRichardsappears,asawhole,toargue
thatshewasdismissedbecausesheplagiarizedherpaper. However,therecorddoesnot
support a finding that UAF dismissed Richards for plagiarism. Rather, she was
dismissedprincipally becauseshecouldnotappropriatelyacceptfeedbackinallsettings,
includinginherresearchassistantshipandclinicalpracticum,duringwhichshewas
unwillingtoacceptconstructivecriticismandwasquicktodoubtthejudgmentand
experienceofothers. TheseproblemsescalatedtothepointthatRichardswasaskedto
resign from her research assistant position and was suspended from her clinical
practicum. In dismissing Richards,UAF alsoreliedon thefacts thatshehadnot
completedtheremediationassignmenttosatisfactorystandards,andshehadnotbeenin
goodstandingfortwosemesters.
Although plagiarism is listed in the Student Code of Conduct as a
disciplinaryinfraction,theconductforwhichRichardswasactuallydismissedfitsinto
theHandbooksAcademicImpairmentsection. Thissectionlists,asexamplesof
15 Nickerson,975P.2dat48-49.
16 Id. at52-53.
17 Id. at 53 (quotingBd. of Curators of the Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz,435U.S.78,90(1978)).
-11- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
12/27
conductthatmayconstituteacademicimpairment,aninadequatelevelofself-directed
professionaldevelopmentandinappropriateuseofand/orresponsetosupervisionor
academicguidance.
Richardsalsoclaimsthatthedismissalmusthavebeendisciplinarybecause
Foley was involved fromthebeginning, andRichardswas initiallydirected tothe
StudentCodeofConduct.Theseargumentsdonothavemerit.WhenexaminingUAFs
course of conduct as a whole, the weight of the evidence makes clear that UAF
consistentlyusedacademicproceduresaftertheverybeginningoftheproceedings.Not
onlydidUAFs initialplagiarism-relateddecisionclearlystate thatRichardscould
appealtheacademicdecision[],butUAFalsofollowedthestepslaidoutinthe
Handbookforacademicissues[See SectionB,infra],andUAFsGeneralCounsel
discussedtheissueasbeingacademicininternalemails. Toplacetoomuchweighton
UAFs preliminary initiation of procedures before either party had all relevant
information when determining whetheran issue isacademicordisciplinary would
severely hamper UAFs ability to correctly classify proceedings as academic or
disciplinary.
We conclude, based on our holding inNickerson, that UAF acted
reasonablywhenitclassifiedRichardssdismissalforfailuretofollowfeedbackasan
academicdismissal.
B. UAFSubstantiallyFollowedItsLegallyValidProcedures,AndThe
DismissalWasNotArbitraryOrCapricious.
Richards argues (1) thatUAFshouldnothaveappliedthe Handbook
procedures18 and (2) that UAF did not comply with those procedures.
18 AfewofRichardssargumentsinthissectionofherbriefrelatebacktothedisciplinaryversusacademicdichotomy. Forexample,shearguesthattheMay2008meetingwithDr.Brems,Dr.Allen,andFoleywasnotinformalandtherefore
(continued...)
-12- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
13/27
ShealsotakesissuewiththesubstanceoftheHandbookproceduresastheyrelatetodue
processconsiderations.19
1. ItwasnotarbitraryorcapricioustoapplytheproceduresintheprogramHandbook.
UAFhasseveralsetsofgovernancerules: Regentspolicies,university
regulations,facultysenatepolicies, and theprogramHandbook. Regentspolicies
includeaverybroadstatementthatifastudentisdismissedforacademicreasons,the
challenge is to be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in university
regulationsandtheMajorAcademicUnitsrulesandprocedures.20 Theuniversity
regulationforacademicdismissalismorespecificandprovidesthattheMajorAcademic
Unitsrulesandprocedureswillsetforthformalandinformalprocessesbywhicha
studentcanobtainreviewofanacademicdismissalfromaprogramofstudy.21 Itdoes,
18(...continued)startedthedisciplinaryprocessbecauseshewasrequiredtobethere,theDeanandProvostwerecopied,andtherequestwassentonletterheadfromFoley,theDirectorofJudicial Services at UAF. This contention is merely another argument that the
proceduresweredisciplinary,anissueweaddressabove.Evenifherargumentisthatthe superior courterredbycharacterizing thisproceeding as informal, she isalsoincorrect. Nowitnesseswerecalled;itwasnotahearing. ItisbettercharacterizedasatimewhenRichardswasabletoexplainhersideofthestoryinaninformalsetting. TheHandbookitselfsupportsthisconclusion,notingthatStepFivebeginstheinitiationofformalactionandsuggestingthatpreviousstepsaremeanttoserveasinformalmethodsatproblemresolution.
19 RichardsarguesthattheHandbookproceduresaswrittendonotprovidestudentswithdueprocess;weaddresstheseargumentsinthefollowingsection.
20 R e g e n t s P o l i c y P 0 9 . 0 3 . 0 2 4 , a v a i l a b l e a thttp://www.alaska.edu/bor/policy/09-03.pdf.
21 University Regulation R09.03.024(C), available athttp://www.alaska.edu/bor/policy/09-03.pdf.
-13- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
14/27
however,requirethattheprocessincludearequestforaformalreview,reviewbyan
academicdecisionreviewcommittee,andafinaldecisionprovidedtothestudentin
writing.22 Thefacultysenatepoliciesincludeanevenmorein-depthdescriptionofthe
process.23 Under thesepolicies, theprocessbeginswith thestudent requestingan
informalreviewofthedecision. Afterwardsthestudentmayaskforaformalreviewby
a five-member Appeals Committee if the student is dissatisfied with the informal
review.24 AtthemeetingtheAppealsCommitteemaydecidetodismiss25thestudents
requestforformalreviewifthestudenthasfailedtoprovideasufficientreasonthatthe
academicdecisionwasarbitraryandcapricious.26 IftheAppealsCommitteedecides
toaccepttheappeal,itwillscheduleasecondmeetingtoreviewtherequest.27 Finally,
theprogram Handbooklistsanevenmoredetailedsetofmechanisms,especiallyleading
uptotheformalappeal.
ThereisnomerittoRichardssargumentthattheRegentsbroadpolicies
shouldhavebeenappliedoverthemorespecificprogramHandbook. TheRegents
policyexplicitlyprovidesthatthegrievancewillbereviewedinaccordancewiththe
22 University Regulation R09.03-024(C)(1)-(5), http://www.alaska.edu/bor/policy/09-03.pdf.
23 See UAF Governance, Appeals Policy For AcademicDecisions,Procedures,https://www.uaf.edu/uafgov/faculty-senate/policies-procedures/appeals-policy-for-academ/.
24 Id. (A)-(B).
25 See supra note2.
26 UAF Governance, Appeals Policy For AcademicDecisions, Procedures (B)(3)(d), https://www.uaf.edu/uafgov/faculty-senate/
policies-procedures/appeals-policy-for-academ/.
27 Id. (B)(4).
-14- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
15/27
MajorAcademicUnitspolicies,anditdirectsthereaderbacktotheHandbookitself.
TheHandbookappearstobethemostspecificsetofrulesapplicabletoRichardss
program,soitwasneitherarbitrarynorcapriciousforUAFtoconducttheproceedings
accordingtotheHandbook.
2. UAFsubstantiallycompliedwiththeprogramHandbook.
InNickerson weheldthattheUniversitysactionswerenotanabuseof
discretionbecausetheysubstantially compliedwiththecoursecatalog.28 UAFsprogram
HandbookissimilartothecoursecataloginNickerson.29 SinceUAFsubstantially
compliedwiththeHandbookspublishedproceduresondismissal,UAFsconductwas
notarbitrary,capricious,oranabuseofdiscretion. 30
TheprogramHandbookhaseightsteps. Itisastraightforwardexerciseto
relatetheturnofeventsinthiscasewiththestep-by-stepframeworkintheHandbook.31
28 Nickerson v. University of Alaska Anchorage, 975 P.2d 46, 52(Alaska1999).
29 See id.at51(describingthecoursecatalogassettingoutproceduresforappealsofacademicdecisions,includingdismissal).
30 Id.at52.
31 Thesesteps,insummary,are:
(1)AnyonemaybringacomplaintagainstastudenttotheDirectorsofClinicalTraining.Asmallgroupdiscussesthecomplainttodecidewhetheritwarrantsinvestigation.StepOneoccurredwhenDr.AllencontactedDr.BremsandFoley.ThethreediscussedtheplagiarismallegationviaemailanddecidedtomeetwithRichards.
(2) The Directors meet with the student. Step Two occurred whenDr. Allen, Dr. Brems,and Foley metwithRichards inMay 2008.
They allowedRichardstoprovideinput,asthesteprequires.
(3)ThefullPh.D.facultymeetsforanexecutivesessiontomakeaninitialdeterminationaboutwhethertopursuefurtheractionundertheHandbook. StepThree
(continued...)
-15- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
16/27
31(...continued)occurredwhenthecorePh.D.facultymetinJune2008.AtthemeetingthefacultymadeaninitialdeterminationthatRichardshadplagiarizedherpaperanddecidedtogiveher
aremediationassignment.
RichardswasnotifiedofthefacultysdecisionatameetingheldinJuly.Shewasalsonotifiedthatshecouldappealthedecision,whichshedidnot.Insteadshewrotetheremediationpaper.BecauseshedidnotappealthedecisiontotheGovernanceCommitteeandthefacultydecidednottorecommendherdismissalatthattime,theremainderofthestepsdidnotapplyin2008.WhenRichardsfailedtocompletetheremediationassignmentin2009,areasonablereadingoftheHandbookreturnedthe
process toStep Three. WhenthecorefacultymetagaininApril2009todiscussRichardsssituation,itrecommendeddismissingRichardsfromtheprogram,anditsentheraletteraskinghertoresign.
(4)Thestudent,thestudentsadvisor,andthefacultymembermakingtheaccusationmeettodiscussthematterand,ifapplicable,discussaremediationplan. Thestudentmayseekaninformalresolutionduringthismeetingifthestudentdisagreeswiththefacultysdecision.ThismeetingtookplaceonJune11,2009,andRichardsreceivedthememoaskinghertoresignatthattime.
(5) If the problem cannot be resolved informally, the GovernanceCommitteereviewsthedisputeanddecideswhethertodismissthestudent. Witnessesmaytestifyatthisstage,andthestudentwillbegivencopiesofallwrittenmaterialstheGovernanceCommitteeisconsidering.Thestudentmayhaveanattorneypresent.The
GovernanceCommitteemetinSeptember2009andtooktestimonyfromRichardsoverthecourseoftwodays,insatisfactionofStepFive.
(6)TheGovernanceCommitteereachesadecision.(ThisstepismislabeledasStepFiveintheHandbook.)TheGovernanceCommitteedecidedonaformalcourseofaction,dismissingRichards,duringStepSix.
(7) The Governance Committee notifies the student in writing of itsdecision.Thestudentmayappealthisdecision.(ThisstepismislabeledasStepSixintheHandbook.)TheGovernanceCommitteetransmitteditsdecisiontoDeanDuffy,whonotifiedRichardsofthedecisioninwritingthatsameday. StepSevenallows theGovernanceCommitteetodelegatenotificationtoathirdparty,soitwasproperforDeanDuffytonotifyRichards.
(8)Ifaremediationplanisgiven,thestudentandthestudentsadvisormeettoensureitiscompleted.Ifthestudentfailstocompletetheremediationassignment,she
(continued...)
-16- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
17/27
AfterStepSeven,whenDeanDuffynotifiedRichardsthattheGovernanceCommittee
haddecidedtodismissher,theproceduremovedtoUAFsfacultysenateregulations,
whicharereproducedintheHandbook.
Thesenateregulationsrequirethestudenttoattemptfirsttoresolvethe
issueinformally. RichardsinformallyappealedtoDeanDuffybecausethedepartment
chair,Dr.Allen,wasdirectlyinvolved. DeanDuffyconcludedthatthedecisionto
dismissRichardswouldremainunchanged. Aspertheregulations,Richardsfileda
formalappealwiththeProvostonOctober31,2009.TheAppealsCommitteemeton
December 3.32 The Appeals Committee dismissed Richardss appeal because it
concludedthatshedidnotprovidesufficientsupportforherassertionthattheacademic
decisionwasarbitraryandcapricious.
UAFdidathoroughjoboffollowingitsinternalpoliciesandregulations;
thereforeweconcludethatUAFdidnotactinanarbitraryorcapriciousmannerin
dismissingRichardsfromtheprogram.33
31(...continued)
maybedismissedfromtheprogram. (ThisstepismislabeledasStepSevenintheHandbook.)
32 Richardsarguedbeforethesuperiorcourt,butdoesnotnowargue,thattheAppealsCommitteemetoutsideofthemandatedten-dayperiod.Thesuperiorcourtsreasoningonthisissueispersuasive:thattheregulationrequirestheAppealsCommitteetosetadatewithintendaysofreceivingtheappeal. Buteveniftheregulationrequiredthemeetingtobeheldwithintendays,Richardshasnotshownshewasprejudicedbythismistake,andUAFsubstantiallycompliedwithitsregulationsoverall,evenwhenconsideringthisdeficiency.
33 Richardspointstothesubstantialamountofcourseworkshesubmittedintheadministrativeproceedingsdemonstratingfavorablecommentsasevidenceofher
positiveacademicperformance.Buttherewasalsosubstantialevidencethatsherefusedtoacceptfeedback,bothinclassesandontheplagiarismissue. ThefactthatRichards
(continued...)
-17- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
18/27
C. TheSuperiorCourtDidNotErrInHoldingThatRichardsReceivedDueProcess.
NeitherwenortheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasspecificallyheldthat
dismissal fromagraduateprogramconstitutesdeprivationofa liberty orproperty
interest.34 Butaschoolmustprovideminimalprocessbeforesuspendingordismissing
astudentfordisciplinary reasons.35 WehaveadoptedtheUnitedStatesSupreme
Courtsapproachthatsuchdueprocessissatisfiedif(1)theschoolfullyinformsthe
studentofitsdissatisfactionwith[her]performanceandthedangerthatthisdeficiency
posestocontinuedenrollment,and(2)theultimatedecisiontodismissiscarefuland
deliberate.36 Thelevelofdueprocessrequiredforanacademicdismissalwouldbeless
thantheminimaldueprocessrequiredforadisciplinarydismissal. 37
1. Amountofprocessrequired
Richardsarguesthatbecauseofthestigmatizingnatureoftheallegations
againstherfailuretoacceptfeedbackand(shecontends)plagiarismsheshould
receivemoredueprocess than requiredinNickerson. She interpretsNickerson as
dissolvingthedistinctionbetweenacademicanddisciplinarydismissals,entitlingherto
disciplinary due process protections. Neither of these argumentshas merit. The
33(...continued)had other, more favorablecomments onher workdoes not makeUAFs decisionarbitraryorcapricious.
34 Nickerson,975P.2dat52.
35 Id. at 52 (quoting Szejner v. Univ. of Alaska, 944 P.2d 481, 486(Alaska1997)).
36 Id. at 53 (citingBd. of Curators of the Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz,435U.S.78,85(1978)).
37 Id. at52-53.
-18- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
19/27
allegationsinNickersonhostile,abrasive,intimidating,andunprofessional
behaviorwhileteachingarejustasstigmatizingastheallegationsagainstRichards
herinabilitytoacceptfeedbackinvarioussituationsandherfailuretosatisfactorily
completeherremediationassignment. AndherargumentthatNickerson dissolvedthe
distinctionbetweenacademic anddisciplinary dueprocessdoesnotfollowfroma
reading of the case. InNickerson we repeatedly cited to the distinction between
academicanddisciplinaryprocess,atonepointstatingthatauniversityimposing
sanctions forimproperconductcannotavoid themarginallygreaterprotectionsfor
disciplinary proceedings, including an informal hearing, by labeling the dismissal
academicratherthandisciplinary.38 Moreover,thedifferenceinthesetwoprocedures
wasthebasisforourdiscussioninNickerson ofwhetherthedismissalwasacademicor
disciplinary.39
Nothing inRichardssargumentsprovidesareasontodepartfromthe
standardinNickerson that[d]ismissalofastudentforacademicreasonscomportswith
therequirementsofproceduraldueprocessifthestudenthadpriornoticeoffaculty
dissatisfactionwithhisorherperformanceandofthepossibilityofdismissal,andifthe
decisiontodismissthestudentwascarefulanddeliberate. 40
2. Biasbydecisionmakers
Tomeetanydueprocessstandardthedecisionmakersmustnothavebeen
biased,sowenextaddressRichardssaccusationsofbias.41 First,Richardsarguesthat
38 Id.at53.
39 Id.
40 Id. (quotingSchuler v. Univ. of Minn.,788F.2d510,514(8thCir.1986)).
41 See Withrow v. Larkin,421U.S.35,47(1975)(holdingthatabiased(continued...)
-19- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
20/27
Dr.Allenwasbiasedagainstherbecauseshereportedanincidentofsexismbyanother
professortohim. Notonlyisevidencerelatedtotheallegationofsexismnotpresentin
therecord,buttheprofessorinquestionwasnotamemberofeithertheGovernance
Committeeor theAppealsCommittee.NorwasDr.Allenon theGovernanceCommittee
ortheAppealsCommittee.
Richardssotherargumentsrelating tobias centeron theGovernance
Committeehearingand theAppealsCommitteemeeting. Sheargues thatMichael
OBrien,UAFsGeneralCounsel,hadanundueinfluenceontheAppealCommittee
proceedings.Andshearguesthattherewerenoindependentreviewsofherdismissal
becausetheGovernanceCommitteewasmadeupofaccusingparties. Shealsoalleges
thatthematerialsshesubmittedtotheGovernanceCommitteeweretamperedwith.
Finally,shearguesthatDeanDuffywasbiasedbecausehesignedherdismissalonthe
samedayhereceivedit.
Administrativeagencypersonnelarepresumedtobehonestandimpartial
untilapartyshowsactualbiasorprejudgment. 42 Richardsprovidesnoactualevidence
supportingherallegations. ShearguesthatithasnotbeenprovedthatOBriendidnot
participate in the Appeals Committee decision, but this argument is insufficient:
argumentisnotevidence.Andneitheroftheaccusingparties,Dr.AllenandDr.Brems,
werevotingmembersoftheGovernanceCommitteeortheAppealsCommittee.Finally,
otherthanherbareallegation,thereisnoevidencethatthematerialsshesubmittedtothe
GovernanceCommitteeweretamperedwith.HerargumentthatDeanDuffywasbiased
becausehesignedtheGovernanceCommitteedecisionthesamedayhereceiveditfails
41(...continued)decisionmakerrendersanadministrativeproceedingunconstitutional).
42 AT & T Alascom v. Orchitt,161P.3d1232,1246(Alaska2007).
-20- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
21/27
becausetheHandbookmakesclearthathewastransmittingthedecisionratherthan
independentlyreviewingit.
Inshort,Richardsoffersnoevidencethatwouldrebutthepresumptionthat
administrativeagency employees arepresumedtobehonestandimpartial.Biasdoes not
presentabasisforustoconcludethatUAFdeniedRichardsdueprocess.
3. DueprocessstandardunderNickerson
UnderNickerson,Richardsonlyneededtoreceivepriornoticeoffaculty
dissatisfactionwith. . .herperformanceandofthepossibilityofdismissalanda
decisionthatwascarefulanddeliberate.43 Generally,theHandbooksatisfiesthesedue
processrequirementsandaffordsstudentsadequatedueprocess.TheHandbook requires
writtennotice[w]henastudentisplacedonnot-in-good-standingstatusandcautions
thatifa studentdoesnotreturntogoodacademicstandingbytheendofthetwo
semestersfollowingplacementonnot-in-good-standing[status],thestudentmaybe
dismissedfromtheprogram.TheHandbookalsoexplicitlyrequiresnotificationtothe
studentinStepsFourandSix. Furthermore,theHandbooksrequirementshelpensure
thatdecisionsmadeunderHandbookprocedures,includingdismissaldecisions,are
careful and deliberate. The Handbook provides for multiple meetings between
interestedparties,includingapreliminarydiscussionofthecomplaintinStepOneand
meetingswiththestudentinStepsTwoandFour,aswellasnumerousopportunitiesfor
deliberation,includingadiscussionamongthecorefacultyinStepThree,anevaluation
bytheGovernanceCommitteeinStepFive,andareviewoftheremediationplaninStep
Eight.
ThesuperiorcourtcorrectlynotedthatUAFwentfarbeyondwhatdueprocess requiredwhen it dismissed Richards. Nonetheless,Richards raises many
-21- 7090
43 Nickerson,975P.2d46,53(Alaska1999)(quotingSchuler,788F.2dat514).
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
22/27
argumentsonappeal.44 Theargumentthatgoestotheheartofherdueprocessconcerns
isherargument that shedidnot receive proper notice of herdismissal. Richards
contends that the provisions in the Handbook warning of dismissal for failure to
remediateandcontinuednot-in-good-standing statuscannotbeconsideredpropernotice.
[N]oticemustprecedetheacademicdismissalbyareasonabletimesothat
astudenthasareasonableopportunitytocurehisorherdeficientperformance. 45 [T]o
bemeaningful,astudentmustbegivennoticepriortothedecisiontodismissthatthe
facultyisdissatisfiedwith[her]performanceandthatcontinueddeficiencywillresultin
44 Many of Richardss arguments related to this claim can be quicklydismissedasfactuallyinaccurateorunhelpful. (1)Shearguesthatshewasdenieddue
process because she did not havea lawyer or advisor present at the GovernanceCommitteemeetingunderStepFiveoftheHandbook. However,dueprocessdoesnotrequireanattorneytobepresent. See Nickerson,975P.2dat53(holdingthatahearingisnotrequiredandnotmentioninganyrighttorepresentationforacademicdismissals).
Nevertheless,theHandbookallowsanattorneytobepresent,butRichardschosenotto
haveanattorneyatthis stage,even thoughshedidhaveanattorneyearlier intheadministrativeproceedings.Althoughshedidnotchoosetohaveanattorneypresent,Richardsdidhaveastudentrepresentativeontheappealscommittee.(2)SheallegesthatshewasnotallowedtopresenthermaterialstotheAppealsCommittee. However,theAppealsCommitteethoroughlyreviewedallofthematerialsthatRichardssubmitted.(3)Shearguesthatsheshouldhavebeenpresentattheexecutivefacultymeetingwherethefacultyfoundthatsheplagiarizedtheintegrationpaper. UndertheHandbookthismeetingwasaclosedexecutive meeting.Furthermore,dueprocessdoesnoteven requireahearing,soitiscertainlynotnecessaryforUAFtopermitRichardstoattendtheexecutive meeting. See Nickerson, 975 P.2d at 53. (4) Richards also makes the
argumentthattheHandbookshereceivedwasindraftformandthatlaterchangestotheprocedures indicatethat UAF knewthatthedraft procedures were constitutionallyflawed.ButtheHandbookbeingindraftformisinsufficientforustoconcludethattherewereconstitutionalerrorsinit.
45 Nickerson,975P.2dat53.
-22- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
23/27
dismissal.46
Richardswasgivenrepeatednoticethattherewereissueswithherinability
toacceptfeedbackandregardinghernot-in-good-standingstatus. Her initial2008
reviewdetailedherproblemsacceptingfeedbackinmanysituations,not justwithregards
toherintegrationpaper,andthefacultyclearlyinformedherthatherremediationpaper
didnot showthatsheunderstoodwhyher integrationpaperwasplagiarized. The
professorforwhomRichardswasaresearchassistantaskedhertoresign,citingher
difficultiesacceptingandrespondingtofeedback. AndRichardsssupervisorforher
clinicalpracticumalsostatedthatshedidnotacceptfeedbackwell,whichledtoserious
impassesresultinginasuspensionofherrighttopracticeintheclinic.Richardswas
informedthatshewasnotingoodstandingbothin2008whenshereceivedherupdated
annualreportandinJanuary2009whenthefacultydeemedherremediationpaper
insufficient. AlthoughRichardsreceivedsomepositivecommentsinthe2008annual
review,thepositivemessagesdonotoutweighthefacultysincreasinglynegativereports
to her, especially at the time her remediation paper was rejected, when she was
terminated from her research assistantship, and when she was continued in
not-in-good-standingstatus.
Giventheevidenceabove,Richardsreceivedsufficientnoticethatthere
wereseriousconcernsaboutherabilitytoacceptfeedbackinacademicandprofessional
settings. By the time of the Committees final decision to dismiss her in
September2009,shehadnoticeofseveralspecificexamplesdetailingherinabilityto
receivefeedback,includingtherejectionofherremediationpaper,thecontinuationof
hernot-in-good-standingstatus,andherdismissalfromherresearchassistantship.Secondly,Richardswasgivensufficientnoticethatcontinuationonher
46 Id.
-23- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
24/27
currentcoursewouldresultindismissal.47 AlthoughRichardswasnotdirectedtothe
Handbookduringthe2008annualreview,shewasdirectedthereinthe2009dismissal
recommendation. Andshewasinformedofhertenuousstatusinthe2008amended
reviewwhenthereviewstatedthatshewasexpectedtoreflect...professionalismin
conduct,andcompliancewiththeAPAEthicalCodeand theUAStudentCodeof
Conduct. Anybreachoftheseexpectationscanresultinnon-continuationinthePh.D.
Program. Thereviewalsoincludedthestatement,Areviewwillbeconductedatthe
AnnualStudentProfessionalDevelopmentReviewinSpring2009,atwhichtimea
determinationabout yourstandingasagraduatestudentwill bemade.Thesestatements
wereeachrepeatedoncemoreinthereview. TheprogramHandbookalsoservedas
notice,alertingRichardsthatmorethantwosemestersofnot-in-good-standingstatusas
wellasanyviolationsoftheAPAEthicalGuidelinescouldresultindismissalfromthe
program.48 TheHandbooklistedinappropriate...responsetosupervisionoracademic
guidance and inadequate level[s] of self-directed development as examples of
academicimpairment.One indicator ofanacademicimpairmentwarrantingmoresevere
interventionisif[t]hestudentsbehaviordoesnotchangeasafunctionoffeedback,
remediation efforts, and/or time. Additionally, the Handbook states that [i]f
remediationisnotsuccessful,studentdismissalmaybenecessary.
Furthermore,therecordreflectstheabundanceofcarefuldeliberationthat
occurredbeforeUAFfacultyterminatedRichardsfromtheprogram,includingmultiple
47 Id. ([T]obemeaningful, a studentmust begivennotice prior tothedecision todismiss that the faculty isdissatisfiedwith[her] performance and that
continueddeficiencywillresultindismissal.).
48 InHermosillo v. Univ. of Alaska Anchorage, No. S-10563, 2004WL362384,at*5(AlaskaFeb.25,2004),weadoptedtheopinionofthesuperiorcourt,whichheldtheappellantshouldhaveknownthatreadmissiontothecoursewouldbediscretionarybasedontheBSWStudentHandbook.
-24- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
25/27
meetingswithRichards,twogroupmeetingsoffaculty,andatwo-dayhearingwhere
Richardstestifiedandthefacultyreviewedthevoluminousevidenceshesubmitted.
Under our standard inNickerson, we hold that Richards received
appropriatelevelsofdueprocess. 49
D. TheSuperiorCourtDidNotAbuseItsDiscretionInItsAwardOf
AttorneysFees.
UnderAS09.60.010(c)thecourt
may notorderaclaimant to pay theattorney feesof theopposingpartydevotedtoclaimsconcerningconstitutionalrights if the claimant as plaintiff, counterclaimant, crossclaimant,orthird-partyplaintiffintheactionorappealdid
not prevail in asserting the right, the action or appealassertingtherightwasnotfrivolous,andtheclaimantdidnothavesufficienteconomicincentivetobring theaction orappealregardlessoftheconstitutionalclaimsinvolved.
ThesuperiorcourtconcludedthatRichardswasnotaconstitutionalclaimantbecause she
hadaneconomicinterestintheoutcomeofthecase. Butthecourtwasworriedabout
chillingfutureclaimantsandawarded$5,021,only10%ofUAFsclaimedattorneys
fees. Weconcludethatthesuperiorcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninthisaward.
Richardshadamorethansufficienteconomicincentivetobringthesuit.
Asshe states inher brief, she had twoyears ofcourseworkinvestedinthe Ph.D.
program,andtheopportunitytopursueaPh.D.isaneconomicinterest.50 Richards
49 Nickerson,975P.2dat53.
50 Alaska Conservation Found. v. Pebble Ltd. Pship,350P.3d273,282
(Alaska2015)(Alitiganthassufficienteconomicincentivetobringaclaimwhenitisbroughtprimarilytoadvancethelitigantsdirecteconomicinterest,regardlessofthenatureoftheclaim.). Richardsalsoclaimsdamages,whichlessensthelikelihoodthatherclaimisconstitutional. See Ninilchik Traditional Council v. Noah,928P.2d1206,1219(Alaska1996)([T]hepartiesherehavemadenoclaimformonetarydamages,
(continued...)
-25- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
26/27
additionallybasesherclaimtoconstitutional-litigantstatusonherbeliefthatherdue
processallegationsmakeheraconstitutionalclaimantsuchthatthecourtmaynotrequire
hertopayUAFsattorneysfees.51 Richardsismistaken.AlthoughRichardsdoesassert
aconstitutionalright,shehadsufficienteconomicincentivetobringtheaction...
regardlessoftheconstitutionalclaim[]involved.52 Thecourtthereforeretainedthe
discretiontoawardattorneysfeestoUAF.
Second,UAFiscorrectthattheawardofattorneysfeesfallsunderAlaska
RuleofAppellateProcedure508(e),notAlaskaRuleofCivilProcedure82. 53 Appellate
Rule508(e)hasbeenchangedsubstantiallysincethesuperiorcourtsfeedecision,54but
atthetimethesuperiorcourtmadeitsdecision,itread:
Attorneys fees may be allowed in an amount to bedeterminedbythecourt.... Ifthecourtdeterminesthatanappealorcross-appealisfrivolousorthatithasbeenbroughtsimplyforpurposesofdelay,actualattorneysfeesmaybeawardedtotheappelleeorcross-appellee.
Thesuperiorcourthadsubstantialdiscretionunderthissectiontoaward
fees,andinthiscaseitonlyawarded10%oftheattorneysfeeseventhoughUAFasked
ittoaward50%. Thesuperiorcourtwaswithinitsdiscretiontoconsiderthechilling
50(...continued)indicatingthateconomicmotivationwasnotasignificantfactorinbringingtheclaim.).
51 AS09.60.010(c)addressesattorneysfeesastheyrelatetoconstitutionalclaimants.
52 AS09.60.010(c).
53 See Stalnaker v. Williams,960P.2d590,597(Alaska1998)(AsuperiorcourthearinganappealfromanadministrativeagencyawardsattorneysfeesunderAppellateRule508,notCivilRule82.).
54 See AlaskaSupremeCourtOrderNo.1843(April15,2015).
-26- 7090
7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)
27/27
effectahigherawardcouldhaveonfuturestudentsandreducetheawardaccordingly.
Andwehaveupheldanevenhigherawardpercentage-wiseinapastacademiccase. 55
WeholdthatthesuperiorcourtdidnoterrbyconcludingthatRichardswas
notaconstitutionalclaimantanddidnotabuseitsdiscretioninawarding10%ofUAFs
attorneysfees.
V. CONCLUSION
WeAFFIRMthesuperiorcourtsdecisionupholding UAFsadministrative
decisiondismissingRichardsfromherPh.D.program.
-27- 7090
55 Hunt v. Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, 52 P.3d 739,746 (Alaska2002)(upholdingapproximate20%award).