Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Civil Rights — Discrimination

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 30, 2012//

Civil Rights — Discrimination

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 30, 2012//

Listen to this article

Civil Rights — Discrimination

Where a dental student failed several courses and engaged in unprofessional conduct, her expulsion did not violate the equal protection clause.

“To succeed on her ‘class of one’ claim, Park must show that IUSD intentionally discriminated against her and that there is no rational basis for IUSD’s actions, Del Marcelle v. Brown Cnty. Corp., 680 F.3d 887, 913 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (Wood, J., dissenting), or that IUSD should have known that its discriminatory actions lacked justification, id. at 889 (Posner, J., lead opinion).

Park suggests that she has shown intentional discrimination because other IUSD students who were party to a cheating scandal at the school received a less harsh punishment, despite their more serious violation. See Supp. App’x to Reply Br. at A209 (citing Indiana University School of Dentistry, WIKIPEDIA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_University_School_of_Dentistry). Even if we put aside the fact that none of these allegations is contained in her complaint, we cannot overlook the fact that there is no reason to suppose that these students are comparable to Park. We do not know, for example, whether these students, like Park, failed several classes, failed to schedule required remediation exams, engaged in unprofessional exchanges with their professors, and breached the university’s confidentiality policy. These additional facts defeat any plausible inference that Park’s expulsion could be traced to intentional discrimination. Instead, they show that IUSD’s decision to dismiss her, rather than some of her peers, was not irrational. ‘It is entirely rational . . . to permit state actors to make individualized decisions when the very nature of their job is to take a wide variety of considerations into account.’ Del Marcelle, 680 F.3d at 913 (Wood, J., dissenting). After accounting for all of Park’s conduct, we see nothing in the complaint that would cause us to question IUSD’s decision to dismiss Park from the school.”

Affirmed.

11-1933 & 11-2109 Park v. Indiana University School of Dentistry

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Lawrence, J., Wood, J.

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests