Susan M. v. New York Law School
557 N.Y.S.2d 297, 556 N.E.2d 1104, 76 N.Y.2d 241 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Courts will not review a student's challenge to a particular grade or other academic determination relating to a substantive evaluation of the student's academic capabilities unless there is a demonstration of bad faith, arbitrariness, capriciousness, irrationality, or a constitutional or statutory violation.
Facts:
- Petitioner enrolled at respondent New York Law School in the fall of 1985.
- At the end of her first year, she was placed on academic probation for failing to achieve a 2.0 GPA.
- Law school rules stated that a student on probation who fails to achieve both a semester and cumulative 2.0 average is subject to discretionary dismissal by the Academic Status Committee.
- In her fourth semester, petitioner's semester average dropped to 1.546, lowering her cumulative average to 1.89, which subjected her to dismissal.
- Petitioner attributed her poor performance to grades in two courses, including a 'D' in Corporations.
- The Corporations professor allegedly told petitioner she received zero credit on an essay question worth 30% of the exam because she analyzed the problem under both Delaware and New York law when only Delaware law was requested, despite her Delaware law analysis being correct.
- Petitioner presented her case to the Academic Status Committee, which declined to consider her challenges to the grades and voted unanimously to dismiss her for academic deficiency.
- The Committee declined to reconsider its decision after petitioner submitted additional materials.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner initiated an Article 78 proceeding in the New York Supreme Court (trial court) seeking reinstatement to the law school.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, concluding that petitioner failed to demonstrate that her dismissal was arbitrary, capricious, or ordered in bad faith.
- Petitioner appealed to the Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division reversed in part, remanding the matter to the law school for further consideration of the Corporations grade to determine if it was a rational exercise of discretion.
- Respondent law school appeals, and petitioner cross-appeals, to the New York Court of Appeals (highest court).
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 student's challenge to a particular grade, which forms the basis for an academic dismissal, present a judicially cognizable claim when the challenge alleges the grade was arbitrary and capricious but does not demonstrate bad faith or a constitutional/statutory violation?
Opinions:
Majority - Alexander, J.
No. A student’s challenge to a particular grade or other academic determination based on a substantive evaluation of academic capabilities is beyond the scope of judicial review, absent demonstrated bad faith, arbitrariness, capriciousness, irrationality, or a constitutional or statutory violation. Strong policy considerations prevent courts from intervening in an educational institution's judgment of a student's academic performance, as these are determinations requiring the special expertise of educators. Unlike disciplinary actions, academic assessments are at the core of the educational mission, and judicial intervention would undermine the integrity of academic credentials and promote excessive litigation by unsuccessful students. Petitioner’s claims regarding her Corporations grade go to the heart of the professor’s substantive evaluation of her academic performance and thus do not meet the high standard required for judicial review.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the doctrine of judicial deference to the academic decisions of educational institutions. It establishes a very high bar for a student seeking to challenge a grade or academic dismissal in court, clarifying that a mere disagreement over pedagogical methods or grading criteria does not rise to the level of legally cognizable arbitrariness. The decision effectively shields the substantive academic judgments of educators from judicial second-guessing, thereby protecting academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Consequently, future litigants must plead specific facts demonstrating bad faith, a statutory violation, or a complete lack of rational basis, rather than simply arguing that a grade was unfair.
