Fussell v. LA. BUSINESS COLLEGE OF MONROE
519 So. 2d 384, 1988 WL 3564 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a private educational institution suspends a student, it bears the burden of proving the suspension was justified by the student's conduct. Expressing criticism of the school's administration or causing 'unrest' is not sufficient justification for suspension unless the conduct materially disrupts the scholastic program.
Facts:
- On February 7, 1983, Shelva Maria Fussell executed an enrollment contract with Louisiana Business College of Monroe, Inc. to receive training as a legal secretary.
- Amid growing discontent among students and teachers regarding the college's administration and financial practices, Fussell and 20 other students signed a petition addressed to the district attorney.
- The student and teacher complaints, including allegations of unqualified instructors and a poor job placement record, were detailed in a newspaper article on May 18, 1983.
- Fussell discussed her concerns about the school with other students, which another student reported to the administration in a written complaint.
- On May 26, 1983, the college suspended Fussell, labeling her a 'disruptive influence.'
- The college conditioned Fussell's readmission on her signing a document admitting she had been disruptive and agreeing to summary suspension for any future conduct deemed disruptive by the administrator.
- Fussell refused to sign the document.
Procedural Posture:
- Shelva Maria Fussell sued Louisiana Business College of Monroe, Inc. in a Louisiana trial court for breach of contract.
- The trial court initially found for the college, concluding the suspension was justified.
- Fussell, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal held that Fussell had established a prima facie case and remanded, placing the burden of proof on the college to justify the suspension.
- On remand, the trial court again found in favor of the college.
- Fussell, as appellant, appealed the trial court's second judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a business college breach its enrollment contract by suspending a student for being a 'disruptive influence' when the student's conduct consisted of signing a petition and voicing concerns about the school's fiscal policies, but did not disrupt classes or the academic environment?
Opinions:
Majority - Marvin, Judge
Yes, the business college breached its enrollment contract by suspending the student without justification. The college failed to meet its burden of proving that Shelva Maria Fussell's conduct was disruptive to the scholastic program. The court reasoned that the college provided no specific evidence of disruption; in fact, Fussell's teachers testified she was an excellent student who did not disrupt class. Vague accusations of 'instigating unrest' or 'putting doubts in other students' minds' related to the school's fiscal administration are insufficient to justify suspension. The court established that student grumbling or criticism must be of a much greater degree and directly impact the academic environment to legally constitute disruptive behavior justifying a breach of the educational contract by the school.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the contractual nature of the student-university relationship and sets a high bar for private institutions seeking to suspend students for expressing dissent. It establishes that a school's power to enforce rules of conduct is not unlimited and must be tied to preventing actual disruption of the educational mission. The ruling protects students from being disciplined for conduct, such as criticizing administrative policies, that does not interfere with the academic environment. This places a significant burden of proof on the school, requiring specific evidence of scholastic disruption rather than general claims of causing 'unrest' or undermining authority.
