Tedeschi v. Wagner College

404 N.E.2d 1302 (1980)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Tedeschi (P) was a part-time student at Wagner College (D). Her performance left something to be desired, and she also had severe social problems while in class. Her Latin professor testified that she did not participate in class and did not know the required material and could not answer any questions when called upon. Her conduct in class was disruptive as she would pick up her handbag and leave the class and then return two to three minutes later. This conduct was repeated 3-4 times each period. When she sat for her Latin exam, she dramatically tore up her blue book and did not hand it in. She was advised that without the blue book her grade would be an F. Beginning at 4 a.m. the next morning and continuing for two days, her Latin professor was barraged with phone calls from P threatening to commit suicide or to fix him. She even appeared in front of his house. Only when the police appeared and P was advised of the possible criminal consequences of what she was doing did the disturbing activity cease. The academic dean of the school contacted P’s mother and arranged a meeting to discuss P’s academic situation. P refused to meet and began harassing calls again. The next day P was advised that she was suspended because of her bad character and her disruption of the Latin class. Eventually, P did meet with the academic authorities, but they described that conversation as irrational and fruitless. P was told that she was withdrawn from the current semester but could reapply for the fall semester if she wished. P’s tuition was refunded for the spring semester, and P’s mother testified that she called the school for a hearing but without success. P then sued D. The trial court found that there was no constitutional violations as D was not State involved, that the court could not review the academic suspension, and that the disciplinary actions of D were not arbitrary and that P had failed to prove any damages. The Appellate Division affirmed. The dissent on appeal claimed that the relationship was contractual and that the college had not conformed to its own procedural guidelines. D’s own procedures called for hearings before a Student Faculty Board in the event of dismissal for disciplinary problems.