Hypothetical question: School decision inpacts students future. Can students sue?

<p>Hello Parents:</p>

<p>I was reading the recent thread about disciplinary action and the possibility that a school may take some action that may influence the student's future and I started to think: Even though schooling is not a typical consumer product, could someone sue a school if their actions cause a significant negative effect on the students future?</p>

<p>Suppose the following based on the recent disciplinary thread: I go to the roof of a campus building and the school puts a disciplinary flag on my records for 8 years. A few (less than 8) years later, I apply to some graduate school and the admissions committee states that I will not be admitted because of my previous disciplinary action. If I could prove that my expected future earnings outcome is likely to be significantly affected by this, do I have a case? Doesn't the punishment have to fit the crime?</p>

<p>Before you start wondering, I am not subject of any disciplinary action, but I am beginning to think that the interconnectedness of our society may be a basis for changes on how we see school records. The same way that a Credit Monitoring agency cannot arbitarily dispense low credit scores without a solid reason.</p>

<p>You would have a case for what? There’s no tort there. There is no right to be admitted to a graduate school and you don’t have a right to hypothetical future earnings that you can’t even show would exist.</p>

<p>Furthermore, how would you even know that the gradcom rejected you for that specific reason? Gradcoms do not customarily provide rejected applicants with the reason or reasons their application was unsuccessful.</p>

<p>Hi Polarscribe:</p>

<p>This is a theoretical question and I think it is worth discussing. In my view, organizations need to be cognizant of the effect of their actions. Perhaps a student out there can get feedback from the Adcoms. So keeping the discussion theoretical, if one could show that the disciplinary record was the reason the student was not accepted to, say, medical school, do you think the student may have a case?</p>

<p>I also do not have the right to get a mortgage. However, it is very clear that a Credit Bureau agency cannot dispense whatever FICO score they want to a person. There are also pushback initiatives on how they calculate scores, even if it applies to all consumers:</p>

<p>I did a quick search on FICO and I found this from 5/18/2012 8:25 PM ET, By Liz Weston, MSN Money, Will your doctor kill your credit?:
“The FICO formula treats medical collections the same way it treats other collection accounts, Huynh explained. The company’s analysis has found that people who have a medical collection on their credit reports are more likely to default on other bills.</p>

<p>‘It’s a severe negative derogatory," Huynh said. "The population of consumers who have a medical collection is substantially riskier than the group of consumers that don’t have any collections at all.’

Some consumer advocates question whether the outsize impact of medical collections on credit scores is fair to consumers, given how confusing billing practices can be and how easy it is for a bill to slip through the cracks.”</p>

<p>So I do not see why schools should not be under the same type/level of scrutiny.</p>

<p>

OK, and IANAL, but if you’re suing someone, there has to be a tort - a legal cause of action that allows you to recover damages from someone for something they did.</p>

<p>What tort would allow you to sue over being rejected from a graduate school, theorizing that it’s because you have this negative mark on your record? If you can’t answer that question… then, more or less, there is no legally-cognizable harm and your lawsuit wouldn’t make it past the first set of briefs and a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.</p>

<p>Credit scores are an entirely different animal, regulated in part by the federal government under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 USC 1681 et seq. So you can’t compare the two.</p>

<p>

No. Why would they have a case? A student’s past behavior is pretty clearly a fair topic of inquiry as to their suitability for advanced studies. The student did something wrong in the past. Is it harsh to reject them from a program for that? Perhaps. But when you’re talking about highly-competitive programs with far more applicants than slots, small things that separate candidates from each other gain outsized importance.</p>

<p>Bottom line: There is no law that says graduate programs can’t consider personal behavior and conduct records in their admissions process. Ergo, this person can’t sue a graduate program for doing something that’s not illegal.</p>

<p>^Good point about the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In any event, theoretically this tells me that if this law exists, it is because someone thought it was important and that even the hypothetical issue of “well, in the future I may apply for a mortgage” makes the law needed. One could use this Law as an analogy to advocate for a “Fair School Records Act.” That goes beyond what FERPA prescribes today. </p>

<p>So I guess your answer that it could be very difficult to sue a school now (although I still believe it could be possible with solid evidence of negative outcomes due to the unwarranted school records) is valid, but perhaps someone with the help of a good lawyer could push the envelope and help to establish a new precedent.</p>

<p>Any additional perspectives on this?</p>

<p><a href=“although%20I%20still%20believe%20it%20could%20be%20possible%20with%20solid%20evidence%20of%20negative%20outcomes%20due%20to%20the%20unwarranted%20school%20records”>quote=Inpersonal</a>

[/quote]

Who says the school record is unwarranted, though? What is that claim based upon? The student might not like the school’s decision to make a long-term note on conduct records, but that doesn’t make it legally actionable. If the school followed its internal disciplinary procedures (which the student agreed to be bound by when they enrolled in classes) then there’s nothing that’s going to be legally “unwarranted” about it.</p>

<p>I mean, someone could claim that a transcript notation of disciplinary action is unconstitutional “cruel and unusual punishment,” but that would assuredly be dismissed in about 10 seconds flat, potentially with an admonishment to the attorney in question for wasting the court’s time.</p>

<p>There are always lawyers that if paid will take up a case and I’m sure you could put up a case for lost wages but I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t win. I say test it but you need the right circumstance (not the one you mentioned)</p>

<p>The overwhelming response of every adult I know is: “Thank God I went to high school and college in the 70’s”. School administration, the rules, the police and the laws were a little less rigid and severe. The consequences of our stupid actions in the teen and early adult years were less likely to haunt our lives. </p>

<p>If you were caught on the roof of your dorm in 1978 you would have been “written up” by the hall director, and probably be required to have a chat with the housing director who would have told you not to be so stupid, and that would have been the end of it, at least if that was your first act of stupidity. Today you’d probably end up with a police citation for trespassing and disorderly conduct, which will haunt you forever, even after getting it expunged.</p>

<p>It seems to me that we have lost the attitude of high school and college being a time of mentoring our youngsters from stupidity towards becoming adults who make wise choices. We seem to have more of a “gotcha” attitude towards our teens and young adults.</p>

<p>Although I wonder if maybe the change in attitude I see is as much a reflection of where I now live (DC burbs) compared to where I lived in the 70’s (small town midwest).</p>

<p>Did a lot of fun, stupid things back in the 70’s that I would hate to have still following me around now.</p>

<p>Ok, for the sake of discussing, let’s elevate the crime some to show how silly your argument is:</p>

<p>Freshman year in college you rape a minor and the school puts a disciplinary action in your file. You study to become a teacher but because of your past record you can’t get hired. Are you going to sue the school because of that?</p>

<p>The point you missed was YOU did something wrong to start. No judge is even going to listen to your case. If the information was put in your file by mistake and they wouldn’t remove it after repeated requests, ok, you probably have a case. I highly doubt that the door the girl in that post had NO warnings on it at all. The girl made a mistake, it’s small, it’s not going to hurt her. Even for Grad schools they will want an explanation of what happened and when they hear something like this first semester of freshman year in college with no other dings, they are going to dismiss it and it’s going to be a nonissue.</p>

<p>I think you should sue yourself for having gone out on the roof. </p>

<p>What part of “live with the consequences of your own actions” is not clear? Your hypothetical is laughable quite frankly.</p>

<p>Yes, you can sue a college. And, yes, many, many people, companies, government have done so successfully. And there have beeen cases when a college has stepped over the line of what is allowed, or have illegal policies in place that have not been challenged. Believe me Penn State, for example, is getting sued up the whazooii by a whole list of people. </p>

<p>Schools make mistakes when the make their interdisciplinary rulings at times. In fact they do it a lot, because they are not subject to the letter of the law the same way other organizations may be. They do not have to have a legal conviction, go through the legal system to assess a penalty. So when you become part of the school community, you are subject to their rules that may not be issues outside of the school. The school has a right to assess penalities on you as a student, an employee that would not exist outside of their world. It’s part of what you agree to , when you become part of that instutuion. But there is a gray area that exists between the school’s rules and the legal system, and that is where there is room for a law suit. THere have been many times when a school has had to back pedal and reverse their penalities and decisions when issues are taken to the public court or the mention thereof is made. A lot of times, schools will bent or not enforce there rules just because they do not want the adverse publicity on a matter or it just isn’t worth it if someone threatens a fight. Getting a lawyer familiar with this arena can often get things straightened out without a law suit which schools do not want. The school attorney will often look at a situation and put up the white flag.</p>

<p>Al ot of times schools can be “bullies” about their disciplinary penalties and processes because they do not have to notify the parents most of the time as students are adults (except for paying) and these young adults are not seasoned fighter, and will often ignore summons, or meekly accept consequiences, especially if it looks like parents won’t be notified. A friend of mine got a fine that had to be paid from her son’s school and when she called, was told that she could not be told what the bill was for under the law, but yes, she was down as the bill payer for school expenses and she therefore was responsible for it with all the things that go with that responsibility. If she wanted to know anything more than the amount and payment arrangements, she had to talk to her son. Yeah. When she found out about it and went after the school, the matter was dropped. It was on thing to hit a stupid young adult kid, but taking on a fully informed, experienced, enraged parent was a whole other issue. </p>

<p>So what do you do when drugs are found in your kid’s dorm room and both roommates get the hit for it, and your kids swears it’s not his, and you believe him. Like he’s clean for drugs, has never had the history, and a little sniffing around shows that the roommate is a known druggie. The problem is if your kids is on financial aid and the matter goes outside of the school, he can lose all rights to current and future aid, not to mention other criminal penalites that may be on the table. With that info, a scared kid might sign a statement of blame and take the internal consequences and not even tell a parent. Yeah, I’ve seen this. But Mama and Papa Grizzley may not be so easily intimidated and not like the idea of the matter on their kid’s college record with consequences, though not so sever, from that and also may not be so impressed with the way the school investigated and doled out the consequences. They are not specialists in criminal investigation, and yes, they make mistakes some times. Usually, if the kid is guility , he gets a pretty good pass if it is handled internally and kept quiet, but innocent ones get the shaft since no legal or court system in this country would take the evidence that the college used or the methodology. </p>

<p>So if your kid gets into trouble, he should tell you. The chances are good that he is not skilled and savvy enough to handle the disciplinary process at the school, and in exchange of the matter being taken care of quickly and quietely, can take the rap for something he did not do, or take a larger penalty to avoid the mess. Sometimes that is the best way to go, but sometimes not, and an experienced adult should be involved. Sometimes one parent gets involved, makes enough noise, his kid gets off the hook, and the rest take the penalities. I’ve personally seen this. And, yes, it’'s usually the poor kid with parents not so savvy that is on the hook.</p>

<p>Thanks to all Parents to their considerations. Cpt’s post is awsome.</p>

<p>Just to let you know I agree that there are many situations in which a disciplinary record is warranted, and the elevated crime that SteveMA posted is an example. On the other hand, I think that the 8 years “punishment” for the person who went to the roof is exagerated. Also with respect to SteveMA’s post “YOU did something wrong to start” my entire point is not that students should be protected from all forms of punishment/records. My point is that the punishment needs to fit the crime.</p>

<p>I am not the person who allegedly went to the roof, nor I am subject of a disciplinary action, but these issues get me concerned. I feel that schools have so much power over the student’s future that an ammendment to FERPA is needed. Call it entitlement, but I do not think it is. Going back to my example, the same way that I do not believe that people have the right to high Credit Scores, I also do not believe that Credit Bureaus can ruin you future if you once had a late payment. </p>

<p>Thanks again, Parents, for all your perspectives.</p>

<p>Um…if it was against school policy to do whatever you did, how would you think the SCHOOL should be liable for future issues?</p>

<p>You broke the rules, the school issued their sanction.</p>

<p>I think the best take away from this other thread…don’t do things that violate school policy.</p>

<p>Thumper, I would add to that, try to avoid problems. Many schools now have substance free and/or quiet dorms. At my DDs school, those dorms are increaseing as a % every year. Hopefully those dorms cut down on the problems with roommates stash.</p>

<p>

OK, but so what? What you “think” of that is irrelevant. You don’t have any legal right to substitute your judgment for that of the college. Not liking something is not a legal cause of action. Colleges have the right to impose sanctions on their students based upon legitimate academic or personal misconduct. Having a misconduct mark placed on a transcript for a limited time is hardly a permanent scarlet letter. The college would have been within its rights to simply expel the student - in some ways they got off easy.</p>

<p>If the school in question is a public university, generally any student disciplinary sanctions must comply with legitimate due process requirements - providing a hearing, offering opportunities for a defense, etc. Those may not apply at private institutions, which are not subject to constitutional restrictions.</p>

<p>Hi thumper… I didn’t do anything. I also agree that students should not go against school policy, but my argument is more philosophical.</p>

<p>My argument is this: Times change, and more than ever, now future employers and graduate schools look at everything about the student. Because of that, not only students need to be careful, but schools should be more careful as well.</p>

<p>I gave the Credit Bureau example. I am not saying that consumers should have a free pass that allow them to not pay bills. What I am saying is that a late payment cannot be associated with a Credit Score of -1 or with some hypothetical record that says “do not trust this consumer”.</p>

<p>Again, the world is changing, and institutions need to adapt. I will give you another example. Nowadays, Google is being sued because of its search results (Google it, you’ll find it :slight_smile: ). When the Internet started, few companies depended on Internet Search results to conduct their business and I think that no one would sue a Search Website because of these results. Now that being on top of the Google Search pages become so important, Google needs to be very careful that the search results they dispense is fair and warranted, because the outcome of those searches may impact future business performance of other companies.</p>

<p>Anyone can sue anyone for anything - it’s winning lawsuits that matters. No one who has sued Google over PageRank has ever won a thin dime.</p>

<p>Courts have repeatedly ruled that PageRank is an expression of Google’s opinion and hence is protected by the First Amendment. Nobody has a right to be anywhere in Google’s search results or be ranked anyplace in particular.</p>

<p>This is silly.</p>

<p>Should a stupid kid sue over bad grades?</p>

<p>Anyway, when I do a resume, I don’t put anything bad on it. Did I defraud my company because I didn’t confess to streaking across campus(hypothetically speaking)?</p>

<p>Everyday, I know kids choosing to major in jobs that are disappearing or in decline. Who’s at fault for the inability to read the writing on the wall?</p>

<p>Who sells us on the myth if job security and why do we fall for it?</p>

<p>Thanks for all the information. I am learning quite a bit. I didn’t know that no one has won anything vs. Google. Altough the fact that many people sued the company demonstrats that other people out there think as I do: that Google should strive to provide a “fair” Page Rank.</p>

<p>^^On the subject of suing over bad grades I also think that theoretically this could be possible given the current state of affairs in academia.</p>

<p>Decades ago when the average GPA was a little over 2.0, if a faculty were to dispense a bad grade, the student could compensate with a good grade and be back on track.</p>

<p>Say, in the old days, you get a D (this means you are a bad student), then you study and get an A (this means you are a good student). Taken together you get:
(D = 1.0 + A = 4.0)/2 = 2.5 . This means that you are actually an average student (the midpoint between good and bad).
In other words, a D does not make your academic records “unrecoverable”.</p>

<p>Now, consider what happens when average GPA is 3.3 (at private schools):
You get a D (this means you are a bad student), then you study and get an A (this means you are a good student). Taken together you get:
(D = 1.0 + A = 4.0)/2 = 2.5 . This means that you are still a bad student. The grade dispensed by one single faculty has a disproportionate inpact on a students’ overall performance profile.</p>

<p>If the student wants to get back on track, the student needs 4 As to make up a single D:
(D = 1.0 + 4*A = 16.0)/5 = 3.4.</p>

<p>The question than is: Despite our traditional beliefs of grading scales, should schools be responsible to adopting a grading scale that is relative to their average GPA? If the average is 3.3 and the maximum scale is 4.0 (difference of +0.7), do schools have the responsibility to be extremely careful not to dispense grades below 2.6 (difference of -0.7)?</p>